Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:46, 6 October 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 October	7 October >

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 speedy keep. It obvious that it is totally irrelevant whether this meets WP:GNG or not, it is, as I am told "an iconic American brand" therefore there is no purpose served by dragging this out any longer that I have already. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 21:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Ahoy!

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

not notable, a promotional article about a particular brand of Chocolate chip cookies with no obvious reason to include it in an encyclopedia. fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Dysklyver 20:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WHAAAATTT!!!!!, how could chips ahoy! be up for deletion? they are about the tastiest bikkies out there, surely they meet WP:YUMMY? oh drat, don't we have such a policy..... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in e.g. Fast Food and Junk Food: An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat, Volume 1, also 2, 3 etc.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Fast Food and Junk Food, An Encyclopedia of What We Love to Eat, by Andrew F. Smith. possibly a good source, Pontificalibus should give the page numbers from his copy though since it isn't available online.

[2] The Great American Chocolate Chip Cookie Book: Scrumptious Recipes and Fabled History From Toll House to Cookie Cake PieCountryman Press/W.W. Norton. I have no opinion on whether this book is a reliable source, I can't even tell if it is researched or not, let alone the fact checking it went through.

[[3]] This NY Times article is a good start.

Dysklyver 11:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in the NYT and offline sources. Wikipedia does not require that the sources be easily available online, only that they exist and that someone would be able to verify information in the article about the subject if they had them. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable with significant coverage in multiple types of sources. Not sure what the nom was thinking with this one? WP:BEFORE -- Dane ^talk 21:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese Nips

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

~~fails WP:GNG, non-notable brand.~~ Dysklyver 20:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC) HEY 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cheese cracker. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced there's any reason to merge this with Cheese cracker .... it doesn't seem to be notable in its own right. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are many good sources readily available as anybody can find. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: – 5 point test:

Significant coverage? N I've looked through all 11 pages and cannot see any significant coverage.
Reliable source? Y Can see the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribune. There's probably more.
Multiple sources? Y Definitely.
Secondary sources? Y Some are.
Non-local sources? Y Some are.

However, just the one fail is still enough to not meet the general notability guideline. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please post two links that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability. You have posted a link to Google Search but this does not qualify for the purposes of establishing notability. You have mentioned the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribute but you have not posted links to any references. This Houston Chronicle reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this Chicago Tribune reference is also a mere mention-in-passing (of the product, not the manufacturer) and likewise fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Please read my comment carefully. I'm on your side! J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not merge) as a non-notable food product, a group for which there is no clear WP notability guideline anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a relevant brand of cheese crackers. Aleccat 17:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleccat: relevant does not mean notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalogue of brand names. Dysklyver 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get that and all, but there are sources in this discussion. Stub the article and expand it. Do not be a deletionist. --Aleccat 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG: idiotic branding leads to bomb scare, review of new flavors, trade magazine discussion of Cheese Nips' popularity, more review of new flavors, product launch in Middle East, Goldfish crackers vs Cheese Nips lawsuit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC: well that's a lot better, propose close re WP:HEY. Dysklyver 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This brand is definitely notable and is probably the best known competitor to Cheez-It. (Either way, I oppose "merge into Cheese cracker" since merging a brand into that page makes no sense. The only viable option I can see in lieu of deletion or keeping is "redirect to List of Kraft brands#Mondelez International".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete It doesn't seem to me that anyone is looking at the references that people keep pointing at. Mostly they are passing references; the rest are uniformly "Cheese Nips are Kraft's version of Cheese-Its." Being able to find them on a store shelf somewhere isn't notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the sources provided may not devote much space to discussing these bad tasting Cheez–It knockoffs, I will contend that the sources argue for the notability of this product by treating it like something the reader already knows about. Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Kraft_brands#Mondelez_International. There's nothing in the current article worth preserving. It's 100% promo despite being a WP:DIRECTORY listing, thus doubly excluded per WP:NOT. Redirect is the best option in this case. Someone wants to develop it down the road? Fine! But since it ended up at AfD, the redirect is the best approach. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing found by PMC above, which is enough to satisfy our inclusion requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statista reports that in 2016, 1.5 million Americans consumed eight or more bags of Cheeze Nips. Since Wikipedia notability is a measure of attention to a topic by the world-at-large, this statistic alone is sufficient as evidence of Wikipedia notability. The counter-hypothesis would be that these 1.5 million Americans bought these crackers without knowing what they were buying. Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, perhaps you should go and read WP:WHYN, and then read the notability policies again as you clearly don't understand them, your definition of notability is actually stated as what it is not! notability is nothing to do with something being famous, it is entirely to do with the presence of multiple reliable independent sources that have substantial coverage of the subject. Dysklyver 18:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is not part of the guideline proper. If you look in the WP:N history, I think you will see that it was rejected ten years ago. There is no such thing as "notability policy", unless you mean WP:V#Notability. The place to start in reading WP:N is the lede and the nutshell, which is what supports my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to tell the relevant people how a large section of the current WP:N guideline was rejected 10 years ago, it is still marked as a current guideline on the main notability ~~policy~~ Guideline page. Neither the lede or the nutshell are part of the guideline either, but you are supposed to use these things to interpret it. Dysklyver 21:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is not a part of the standard, so let's move on. As for the lede and nutshell of WP:N, they are what they are, and they are not there to interpret GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands now, the sources in the article satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nom withdraw (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 12:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belvita

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

No notability outside its parent compan(ies), all the sources are about the parent compan(ies) and therefore there is no merit to a distinct article. Dysklyver 20:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references cited in the article establish notability for Belvita. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cracker (food). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned Wheat Thins

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Dysklyver 20:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cracker (food). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to wherever it will fit. I added four references, all of which are fiarly weak mentions that just establish simple things like it is Canadian, it's also sold in the US, it's a cracker, etc. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy Pastilles

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

Fails WP:GNG. unsourced Dysklyver 20:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Vichy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what possible way would that improve either the encyclopedia, or Vichy? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I must ask that too. Dysklyver 19:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Vichy Pastilles is a locally-produced product unique to Vichy, and the selective merge target article also includes a mention of it. At the very least, should be redirected as a valid search term, per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have added more referenced info. They may look like sweets but they have played a significant part in French (cultural) history. It was also acquired for a quarter billion a few years ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have been around since 1825, and thanks to the hard work of Zigzig20s in expanding, this now easily meets WP:GNG. Another case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been almost completely rewritten (see diff) it is now much better than it was previously, and the article now makes it clear that this topic goes beyond being 'just a brand', it has real history and cultural significance - something not asserted in the article when I nominated it. Dysklyver 13:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LA-CO Industries

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

I don't see that this company satisfies WP:NCORP, based on the sources provided and the sources I could find via Google search. In the nominated version of the article (permalink: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LA-CO_Industries&oldid=804109826) the sources are...

Source not online, http://www.supplyht.com/ looks like an industry insider site.
http://www.tempil.com/ is a LA-CO brand and site.
"LA-CO Industries 75th Anniversary Brochure" is obviously a company source.
http://www.allweathermarker.com/ is a LA-CO brand and site.
http://www.laco.com/
http://www.markal.com/ is a LA-CO brand and site.
http://www.laco.com/
https://ahrexpo.com/becomeexhibitor/newresults.php, 404 Not Found, looks like an industry insider thing.
"Lester Aronberg Chair In Applied Chemistry Report by Prof. Yoel Sasson, June 2008", not online, no idea.
"The Board of Jewish Education of Metropolitan Chicago", http://www.bjechicago.org/a_bje_history.asp, 404 Not Found.
"File Not Found - Weizmann Institute of Science", http://www.weizmann.ac.il/pages/page-not-found, 404 Not Found.
""Weizmann Wonder Wander - Homepage - Weizmann Institute of Science News"", https://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/site/en/weizman.asp?pi=1210, 404 Not Found.
http://www.tempil.com/la-co-industries-acquires-tempil/, I get a blank page, but it's a LA-CO brand and site.

My own Google searching finds nothing but primary sources, press releases, passing mentions. I can find no in-depth independent coverage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is also clear that the article has been developed by undisclosed paid editors. Per WP:Outing I can't provide the evidence here, but I can pass it on to any other admin who wants to see it and they can say here whether they agree with me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one thing I can say without breaching WP:Outing (because it's all open at the geolocate link on the IP contributions pages) is that the couple of IPs that have edited the article, User:12.161.143.50 and User:12.161.143.57, are corporate static IPs and geolocate to Elk Grove Village, Illinois, which is is where LA-CO is based. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Boing's analysis and my own searches. Sourcing here doesn't meet our standards for inclusion: it is either not independent or is not substantial. Also fails WP:NOTSPAM as a promotional piece created in violation of the WMF terms of use, and is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:DEL14 and WP:DEL4. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is promotional and there isn't enough indepth coverage in independent reliable sources, meaning that we cannot verify the contents of the article. Thus, because of the promotional nature of the article and its lack of ability to be verified, this article should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Boing and fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Boing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Battle of Nanchang. Seems to already be carried out, redirected and everything. No point in keeping it open any longer, since consensus seemed to be pretty much formed before the relist. ansh 666 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Xiushui River

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

Has never had any sources in its edit history, and does not appear to be significant, mostly part of Battle of Xuzhou. (Delete or redirect) IEsuredI (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, not sure about this yet, but if redirected, I think the Battle of Nanchang article would be a more appropriate target than the Battle of Xuzhou article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (changed from delete) - ~~As far as I can gather, and I have been trying, this battle has been misnamed at best and didn't happen at worst.~~ The Battle of Xuzhou (Jiangsu province) happened in 1938 some 800 kilometres away from the Xiushui river (Jiangxi province) according to Google Maps, so that can't possibly be the correct target for a redirect. Furthermore, the article itself specifies that this engagement was part of the Battle of Nanchang. Assuming this battle happened, as stated, in March at the river, which is around the same time as the Battle of Nanchang, then it makes sense to redirect it there. However, I mention that this battle may not have occured at all, and I base this on the source used at the article for the Battle of Nanchang. You see this source states that; The first action took place at Wucheng in Jiangxi Province, where Japanese troops were held down by Chinese positions near the Xiushui River for four days .... The other relevant quote, which contradicts the first, is Chinese troops repulsed a Japanese attack across the Xiushui River near Wucheng, Jiangxi Province, China. Indeed, Wuchengzhen (Wucheng is in Zhejiang and Wuchang is at Wuhan) is located between the rivers of Xiushui and Ganjiang[4]. So, at the very least, the placement of the battle is incorrect according to the cited source. The idea that a battle may have occurred here is supported by this source which states; The Japanese had come to the conclusion that in order to control the central Yangtze valley they would need to destroy IX War Zone south of Wuhan and west of Poyang Lake. To do that they would drive south on the west side of the lake to the city of Nanchang with their 11th army, recent victors at Wuhan. The Japanese offensive kicked off on 17 March 1939 and met with only few instances of hard fighting. The source, however, doesn't state where this hard fighting happened. Wuchengzhen is located, coincidentally, on the west side of Poyang Lake, and south of Wuhan. In terms of Xiushui, however, all I could find was a reference to Japanese troops following the Xiushui river, from the recently captured Nanchang, on their approach to Changsha with no battle whatsoever. This might seem odd as Changsha is another 500 kilometres from Xiushui river, again, according to Google Maps. The best that I could do was to follow Google Maps and chart a route via google maps from Xiushui river, but, that's semi-OR. This leads me to the final question, do we rename or simply delete the article. I have done as thorough a search as possible, and have found no reference to a battle at Xiushui, and only one reference to a battle at or near Wuchengzhen. I think deletion is the appropriate action here. The only reference that I could find to the battle comes from a C. Peter Chen who appears to be a software engineer with an interest in history, but, isn't a historian. This leaves me with my only available source being of some dubious authorship/scholarship. If perhaps the author had listed their sources for the material, I might be inclined to look at them as well. As they haven't, I can't verify any of their information. Furthermore, they keep saying Wucheng, which as I've stated, is in a different province completely. So, I have to come to the conclusion that this article fails WP:V and as such, should be deleted. TL;DR - The information in the article is unverifiable, the source it appears to come from is of dubious scholarship given that the author is a software technician and not a historian, and as such I come to the conclusion that the article should be deleted. Well, after being notified, I did a second search through the article, refer to my second comment for findings. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wucheng = Wuchengzhen. "Zhen" is just a Chinese word meaning "town", and the Chinese language employs no spaces. The en.wp convention is to omit "zhen" just like the source. You are right there is a Wucheng in Zhejiang, but there are also multiple Wucheng's in Jiangxi, such as our Wucheng, Yongxiu County (zh:吴城镇 (永修县)) and Wucheng Township, Zhangshu (which IS NOT on the Xiushui River despite what the article says). Timmyshin (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information regarding the meaning of "zhen" and the multiple Wuchengs in China. Prompted by your message and !vote, I did, after a second read through of the article, find this article, which I had missed the first time, that specifies the battle with minor details; MajGen Sumita's 6th Field Heavy Artillery Brigade bombards Chinese positions in support of the IJAs crossing of the Xiushui River, but after meeting little resistance, cease the bombardment. Japanese troops successfully cross the river barrier and IJA troops, supported by aircraft and tanks, break out of the Xiushui River bridgehead, defeat Chinese reinforcements and reach the west gate of Nanchang. It's not much, but, it's enough to verify the battle. So, redirect is fine. That said, there are still zero citations in the article itself, I'm not sure that a merge can be performed. Any chance you have any other sources to look at? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can try other spellings of Xiushui: Hsiushui, Hsiu River, Hsiu-shui, Xiu River, Xiu-shui etc. This appears to be a good source: [5] Timmyshin (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Nanchang. The battle did exist and the Nanchang article already contains many details about the Xiushui battle. I don't think there's enough information for a stand-alone article and the Nanchang article isn't very long. Timmyshin (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Nanchang. In fact I'll work on the Nanchang article to incorporate any missing information from Xiushui, as there isn't much to begin with. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:46, 3 October 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)}}} 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge because it's not notable. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark marketing

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

Original research with misused and poor references designed to publicise the view of a particular start-up company, BrandTotal, which claims to have trademarked "Dark Marketing" and uses it to push their marketing intelligence platform. It was quite wrongly accepted at AfC, especially since it contained this blatant advertising for BrandTotal. If further proof of the intent of this article is required, see here. The entire article is based on a very misleading, skewed and idiosyncratic definition of the term "dark marketing", which has multiple uses and meanings in scholarly literature. See the front page of BrandTotal.com and this post on their blog which are essentially repeated in Dark marketing and are now posing as a Wikipedia article. For more on these issues, see the discussions at Talk:Dark marketing. There's a good argument for completely blowing it up. Minimally, it should be returned to draft space. Voceditenore (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC). Expanded by Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I had also looked for scholarly sources and had concluded that this article does not accurately reflect use of the term "dark marketing" in that literature. I had suggested moving the article back to draft, given the obvious AfC failures here, but I am not convinced that the author has an interest in writing a non-promotional article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to draftify, since the author has displayed an interest in writing a more neutral draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have carried out a thorough investigation of this article and have concluded that it misrepresents the body of literature (the blog literature) and completely ignores the scholarly literature on the subject. I have provided detailed, evidence-based arguments on the article's talk page. The article is an exercise in spin and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, with the potential to mislead users. BronHiggs (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be a likely COI/promotional creation, consisting mostly of original (and poorly done) research. A couple of other editors have been thorough in research attempting to see if it can be improved as is, but WP:TNT seems the best course of action. Melcous (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete. Please do NOT delete this article for the following reasons. While I am affiliated with BrandTotal, I chose to write this completely on my own without compensation because I believe it's important to have a wikipedia page on dark marketing to share and make known this ongoing phenomenon. Yes, "dark marketing" has other meanings which I included in the article and will continue to include, as this is still a work in progress. There was no previous page on dark marketing and I believe there needs to be one. All BrandTotal ties have been COMPLETELY REMOVED from the article because the intention was never to promote BrandTotal and, instead, is meant to be an informative piece about dark marketing (BrandTotal information was included originally just to provide factual information that "dark marketing" was indeed trademarked by BrandTotal). Additional references to the article were added/changed that support the writing, and others may continue to be added. I am happy to edit and adjust the article to more clearly demonstrate the other meanings an uses of the term "dark marketing" with scholarly literature. PLEASE put it in draft space and do not delete. I do not at all mean to mislead users, since the meaning of dark marketing that I convey is absolutely one of the meanings. Please consider my points above and understand that I have every intention to write about dark marketing solely for the benefit of the wikipedia and marketing community.Rooks12345 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per Cordless Larry. It's not ready for the mainspace as it appears to be a neologism of sorts but I think it's unfair to the page's author to delete something that has been accepted via AfC that could be notable, verifiable and neutral given enough time and effort. The AfC accept was probably erroneous (courtesy ping Sulfurboy). DrStrauss talk 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I am staying neutral as I was the editor who approved it out of AfC. I will state however, that I did not do as much research as some of the above editors into the scholarly level of accuracy in the article. Thus, consideration should be given to them. Thanks to everyone for their work on looking into this. With 1700ish articles in the AfC process waiting for review, it's hard to dig too deep below the surface in reviewing, so please understand that occasionally one may slip through the cracks. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, while I appreciate that the drafts backlog means that researching each and every topic in detail is not realistic, surely you shouldn't be passing drafts with this much unreferenced content? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~. Comment. I very much appreciate getting more time to adjust the article so that it demonstrates a more scholarly approach. It has great potential and absolutely does not intend to mislead readers, since the meaning conveyed is certainly a meaning of Dark Marketing. As mentioned previously, the sole intention is to help make the wikipedia and marketing community become more aware of this ongoing phenomenon.Rooks12345 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd !vote stricken. Rooks12345, please do not vote twice. Any further comments you make should be preceded by Comment (not Do not delete). Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply tacking on "other uses" to the current article is not sufficient. And, no, the meaning conveyed is not one of the accepted ones. The primary focus of the article is the completely proprietary "definition" and analysis used by BrandTotal in their marketing material. The Wikipedia article is simply paraphrasing that material. No other reliable source uses that definition and that analysis. Nor have any independent reliable sources written about BrandTotal's definition. Simply having removed the explicit advertising copy and all the links to BrandTotal's blog and website, does not change the situation. In fact, given that the whole analysis is paraphrased from BrandTotal's materials, the current state of the Wikipedia article is extra misleading since it does not explicitly state where it comes from. The advertising remains but becomes hidden. By closely echoing BrandTotal's marketing material, the Wikipedia article lends credibility to it whether the BrandTotal name is mentioned or not. It is, dare I say, a prime example of "dark marketing". If sent to draft space, the article will have to be completely rewritten from scratch, leaving out all the previous text. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising per above comment/analysis by Voceditenore. I can understand why it was accepted at AfC, (promotions shouldn't be for perfect articles, just those which the reviewer deems likely notable) but it doesn't stand up to deeper scrutiny. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-ify there's not a feasible mainspace article here at the present time. It's possible this could become one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 3 October 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)}}} 19:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The subject is notable, but the article isn't quite there yet. Since there aren't problems that are significant enough to warrant a delete in my opinion, but the article still shouldn't be in the mainspace right now, draftifying it is the best route to take. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro De Vico

"Withdrawn by nominator

Agreed, but perhaps needs some work.

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

I do not believe the article meets the notability guidelines - it is not adequately referenced. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "it is not adequately referenced" is not a valid reason for deletion. This actor has appeared in more than 70 films, and per WP:BEFORE, you could easily see the article is linked to an extensive page on the Italian Wiki. Within 10 seconds, I found these pages via Google: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple films. As noted by Lugnuts, not being "adequately referenced" is not a viable reason for deletion. There are plenty of sources available and a more robust Italian Wikipedia article that an interested editor can use to flesh out the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks an awful lot like this needs a caffeinated Italian speaker, but probably not deletion, per sources already presented. GMG ^talk 19:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. But people are free to recreate it with independent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Pritchett

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

Fails WP:GNG a puff piece created by his publisher Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presumably the creator mistakenly thinks it's okay to advertise now she's declared her COI. Deb (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. This is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deb. This is an article about a non-notable subject that is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Disclosure of COI does not exempt editors from complying with our basic inclusion and content policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Current sources are not independent, blogs, etc, so I'm not surprised the article was nominated and discussed. That said sufficient other references exist to establish notability. Still not stellar in my search, hence the weak keep. gidonb (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid is promo. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denshin 8 go

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Lacks referencing, so the article seems to be completely original research WP:OR. Lack of referencing also means that is violates WP:V. Promotional and in violation of WP:PROMOTION FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the article for it at ja.wiki[11] is unsourced. Searching for the client shows no coverage to speak of. I think it hasn't been deleted simply because people have assumed it must have bigger importance in Japan, and because that is slightly harder to search for it has been left untouched. But it doesn't have any coverage in Japan either. Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not found Samat lib (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 01:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 09:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ream (email client)

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Lacks referencing, so the article seems to be completely original research WP:OR. Lack of referencing also means that is violates WP:V. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is the same argument as wp:Articles_for_deletion/Courier_(email_client). Time to go. Rhadow (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kagundu Talk To Me 12:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stamford and Rutland Hospital

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Most hospitals of a reasonable size would but this doesn't have the coverage, probably because it is so small and offers little services. WP:ATDs include redirects to Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, I have no objection to these, though personally I would go for delete then create redirect. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage both of its history (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) and contemporary aspects (5, 6, 7, 8).--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You might have missed my reply on these points in the edit summary - or you've ignored them. (You don't appear to have done any personal research or contributed to the article.) However, I'm open to your proposal to consolidate and bring the articles up to date. I would suggest you might take the following approach: (1) Incorporate the content from Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Stamford and Rutland Hospital into North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust and delete those two articles. (2) Revise North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust to provide a historical context and provide a summary of each of three hospitals: Peterborough City Hospital, Hinchingbrooke Hospital and Stamford and Rutland Hospital (which is essentially that summary text). (3) Move any information about organisational structure from those three hospital articles into North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, whilst also updating for the current situation. Millstream3 (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rub (US band)

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

I can find no evidence this band has charted or has any significant in depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and just about everything else I can think of. The only references I can find through searching basically just link back to/regurgitate various iterations of this article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible evidence of a WP:NMUSIC pass, and no reliable source coverage about them in media shown to get them over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 15:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THE RUB meets multiple Wikipedia notability criteria for Bands:

THE RUB clearly meets this criteria:

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).

Happy Squid Records, Los Angeles. www.HappySquidRecords.com one of the most important independent record companies in Los Angeles punk/post punk/underground. THE RUB released 2 full length albums, and is releasing new material on this label in the next 2 weeks.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinals_(band)

Also,

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1].

https://mrowster.wordpress.com/category/the-rub/

This is one example.

"Death Of Pop" by THE RUB has been the opening theme song of this long-running weekly show on WPRB, Princeton University:

http://keepingscoreathome.com/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.115.79 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roel Vertegaal

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

Fails to meet WP:COI, WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:AB, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT policy
Likely fails to meet WP:PROF, but this is secondary in light of other concerns.
From the edit history, it appears that this article was written by the subject himself from various IP addresses, with the goal of self-promotion: Almost all of the content of the article comes from 130.15.1.241, which has only ever edited the Roel Vertegaal article (and is A Queen's University IP). Other contributors include 67.193.129.113, which has edited the Roel Vertegaal and Human Media Lab (Vertegaal’s lab) articles, and 67.193.192.237, which has edited only the Roel Vertegaal, Flexible Display, and Organic User Interfaces articles (located in the same city as Queen’s University).

The subject of this article fails the WP:GNG and WP:PROF policies: It establishes Vertegaal’s notability as an academic by appealing almost entirely to primary sources authored by Vertegaal himself. Of the 20 references given, only 3 refer to sources that are not written by the subject himself. 16 of the other references fail WP:NOR, being primary sources (largely conference papers) authored or co-authored by Vertegaal himself. According to WP:PROF “. . .it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant. . .”

The Roel Vertegaal#Startups section of the biography consists entirely of material promoting Vertegaal’s own business interests and does not adhere to wikipedia’s guidelines regarding NPOV or self-promotion. It supports Vertegaal's standing in the business community with a link to [Xuuk Inc], which is an “Account Suspended” page.

This article is peppered with claims that are either exaggerated, non-notable, or unsourced. Here are a few examples.

A reference in the introduction to “pioneering work,” backed up only by primary sources (academic conference papers), which have the subject himself as an author.
The sentence: “He is also known for inventing ubiquitous eye input, such as Samsung's Smart Pause technologies, and BitDrones, one of the first programmable matter user interfaces” is completely unsourced.
The sentence: “Vertegaal developed one of the first inline PC webcams, FrameServer, deployed by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak” is not sourced, but does feature a link to a listserv post in which Vertegaal himself describes an internet webcam interface he developed—far from “inventing one of the first inline PC webcams.”
The biography also includes numerous examples of unsourced personal information, including the grammar school Vertegaal attended, what brand of synthesizer Vertegaal used as a child, an undergraduate scholarship, and the brand of sports car that he drives. None of these are supported, except for the sports car, which is supported by a reference to Vertegaal’s own twitter account.

I nominate this article for deletion. If it is determined that the subject of the article does meet WP:PROF notability guidelines, it will nonetheless need to be entirely rewritten without the self-promoting material (which, as it stands, is the entire article). AnonymousConcerned (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would anyone care to contribute to the debate regarding the other issues? The question of whether the subject passes WP:PROF is debatable, but also a secondary concern in light of other problems. AnonymousConcerned (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotuion. We need to scrupuously uphold our rules against such to maintain the intergrity of the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment self promotion on its own is not a reason for deleiton. It is a reason for editing.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep even though lots of mainstream sources are available, the article almost exclusively uses arcane journal publicaitons to support ego-building claims. A strong edit is required (TNT perhaps) to reduce the promotional copy. I tried but it was too depressing.96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify; I'd say everything starting with "Early life" could go, leaving only the lead. Seems to pass WP:PROF but the article is too promotional, and some drastic measures are needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed like a good idea so I took care of it. All material starting with early life deleted. Three refs kept, and four new more run-of-the-mill refs added.96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just had a look at the Google Scholar Profile[12] and I see at least 4 papers in SIGCHI with 200 citations or more. Considering that CHI is literally the most important conference in human computer interaction, I think this should be kept. The h-index of 35 (though google scholar slightly inflates it) is also a good indicator of academic notability.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that participation at Eurovision satisfies notability requirements. (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CatCat

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

Fails WP:NM. PROD opposed because "Not notable is not a reason for deletion." Argento Surfer (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs improvements for sure. But has participated in Eurovision a major televised music competition the biggest in the world in fact. Per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The subject did participate in Eurovision Song Contest 1994, where it finished 22 out of 25. WP:MUSICBIO item 9 indicates notability comes from 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place only. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then implicitly they must have won the Finnish national heats. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep participating in Eurovision is enough for a presumption of notability; almost all participants will have either won a domestic-level music competition, or will have songs that appear on a national music chart. Even if this group is one of the few exceptions, it is worth keeping this simply for completeness; the information in the article is easily verifiable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose you can find evidence that this band won a domestic-level music competition or had songs that appear on a national music chart? The sources you added to the article only prove what's already available at Eurovision Song Contest 1994. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - [13] suggests they did win a national-level competition to qualify for Eurovision; I'm not 100% confident in either the source's reliability or the machine translation, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eurovision is a bye for musical notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep per awards received/nominated for. Issues with article are surmountable with a little work. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic: The Complete Story

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

Not notable. Search shows evidence of existance, but no independent coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This article was previously considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic: The Legend Lives On. It was renamed in the intervening years. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 15:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Movie Guide speaks about this film in some detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per receiving a 1994 News & Documentary Emmy Award and a 1995 Cable Ace award nomination. Sorry, but poor research and needing work is a poor reason to delete what can be improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of the awards. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kolly Buzz

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

The company is claimed to be the fourth most followed digital media website in South India. But no reliable sources are available to support that, or WP:GNG or WP:ORG. If there are any regional sources, I've not been able to find them. Fails notability on all grounds. Lourdes 13:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches, including an Indian media search, are finding reproduced tweets from the company account, which confirm the firm going about its business, but nothing substantial. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly fails notability with lack of RS. I also believe we are dealing with a COI. A google search shows that the creator of this article is the founder of the company. Mark the train^Discuss 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Christenson

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

Burton Christenson was an NCO in E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. Neither his rank (technical sergeant) nor his awards qualify him for coverage under WP:SOLDIER; most of the information about him is in relation to generic events, such as a weapon jamming. After the war, Christenson returned to civilian life and worked for "the telephone company" while also operating a gymnasium and working in landscaping; none of these things earned him significant coverage. His most significant representation in the Band of Brothers miniseries involved the incident in which a soldier representing Christenson drank water when told not to do so; Christenson's fellow soldiers said that never happened to the real Christenson. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near passing any notability guidelines. The deletion nomination is very persuasive. The reference to "the phone company" does make sense since at the time there was a phone monopoly in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and coverage is trivial and incidental. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- another which does not meet notability; trivia. Redirect name to E Company. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Graham

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

Had a prod removed with the comment that they were the head coach in a professional league. However, the league they are a head coach of even the players aren't considered notable, nevermind the coaches. Fails to meet WP:GNG after a search, nothing but passing mentions or routine coverage and also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY as either a player or a coach. DJSasso (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Head coaches of sports teams are often more likely to be notable than their players. For instance, head coaches of Division I college basketball and football teams are generally notable, and hockey coaches at that level usually are as well, even though most players on those teams aren't unless they go pro. So I don't necessarily agree with the logic that if the players on the team aren't notable, the head coach isn't either. Of course, that doesn't mean he is notable either. I'm withholding my !vote until I look into this a bit more, but I wanted to get that out there. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely the case in some sports I agree, but not generally in the minor leagues of hockey. This league is a few steps down from the NHL and is mostly in markets that don't have much hockey coverage period, let alone in depth articles about the coach. All that being said I couldn't find any sources, but if some can be found that is great. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the PROD. I am seeing multiple published news sources about the subject being named to the position, being nominated as one of the top five coaches in the league, and having his contract extended. I leave it for the hockey people to determine whether this is sufficient for inclusion; I will say that this notability question should be discussed at AfD rather than through PROD, for sure. Carrite (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we typically consider that type of coverage routine. Surprised no one has come to comment yet as we usually have a number comment on these hockey deletions, other than maybe they don't see it as controversial so haven't commented. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have held off my conclusions until now and have searched for sources because I sort of assumed they would exist for him. But in the end, I found hundreds of mentions in primary sources and lots of routine coverage (ie "Graham named coach", "Graham signs extension", "Graham named Director", etc). I went through about dozen pages of results for "Neil Graham" hockey and I am just not seeing any articles about Mr. Graham himself. I would happily retract my !vote if someone proves otherwise. Yosemiter (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing common practices for minor league coaches, both in hockey and other sports, it appears most of them aren't considered notable unless they pass some other criteria - such as having previously played at the highest professional level in their sport. So I agree we shouldn't be granting minor league hockey coaches (or minor league baseball managers, or G-League basketball coaches) the same sort of presumptive, albeit uncodified, notability we grant to Division I college coaches in major sports. As such, since Graham doesn't meet any other criterion of WP:NHOCKEY (never played in the NHL or anything else that would qualify him, as far as I can tell) we have to look to WP:GNG, and I couldn't find anything non-routine. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That minor-league hockey should not be considered under the same rules and procedures as NCAA Division I basketball or football (I note, for instance, that no one made any comparison to the inherent notability of NCAA Division I lacrosse or track coaches, by way of example) is common sense of the sort that led to the wise decision to unbundle NATHLETE into discrete sports. Division I basketball and football are gigantic deals. Their matches are attended by tens of thousands of fans, broadcast over national networks, dominate regional media. Their coaches are media stars that, when they coach public universities, are often the highest paid public employees in their states. Probably no coaches generate as much press short of those from the top European soccer leagues. By contrast, the subject of this AfD doesn't even toil in the top minor league, and I doubt that any ECHL coach generates as many GNG-qualifying cites in an average season than the coach of Penn State or Alabama will generate this coming weekend. At his level, I'm willing to (charitably) concede presumptive notability for a Coach of the Year citation, and nothing short. Ravenswing 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Omar An-Najar

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

Bio falls under WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Known for 1 event. Questionably sourced from Hamas website.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, questionably-sourced article. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable suicide bomber. The article has major violations of NPOV as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. I looked into renaming to the attack but it is also non-encyclopedic. gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I don't know why guys commented deleted because if you search title in Google you will find 3 news on reliable website like as The guardian ,NBC News,Times of India, Gutenberg And ect.Amirdaeii (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i think she is completely notable for WP.Also Ive added new sources Amirdaeii (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Amirdaeii is CU-blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vo Duc Van

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

Bio falls under WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lacks sufficient notability, while the article is mostly unsourced. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to 2001 Vietnamese Embassy in Bangkok Bombing (+trim down bio). The man perhaps fails BPL1E (though this was a protracted extradition case). The bombing event was significant and involved diplomacy between multiple countries.Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Clarify keep but rename vote.[reply]
Delete - Both the person and the incident fall under WP:NOTNEWS and have no long-term significance. Not to mention there was no "bombing event" but rather an attempted "bombing event". So the hypothetical rename would be "2001 attempted bombing of the Vietnamese embassy in Bangkok"...or whatever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS .WP:BIO1E and has no WP:LASTING significance as the bombing did not place only a bombing attempt.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jaafar

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

No such notability as it fails WP:GNG. We can have an article on the topic Killing of Ali Jaafar if significant coverage exists which I think doesn't exists. Greenbörg (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on non-notable murder victim with only one source. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory and psychology of religion

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

delete per WP:NOTESSAY, it seems User:TaylorNewton is a lecturer who in 2012 got his students to upload their work. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a simple search gives some 146,000 hits while a Google Scholar search returns some 2,300. This is evidently a significant topic in psychology, and as such undoubtedly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The source "Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion by Lee A. Kirkpatrick, 2005" indicates that the article is not only original synthesis. The study of religion from a psychology perspective is a notable topic. If there was not enough material for a separate article, another possibility would be to merge in psychology of religion. —Paleo Neonate – 00:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of religious conversion

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

delete per WP:NOTESSAY, it seems User:TaylorNewton is a lecturer who in 2012 got his students to upload their work. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the psychology of religious conversion is a major topic within the Psychology of Religion. This article has many cited sources, and, whereas it is true that there are a few places where the article says "citation needed", these would be better served by finding citations for these articles than by deleting this article. Vorbee (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are abundant reliable sources on the subject, such as 352 on Google Scholar - a conservative estimate, as there are some 17,000 with a slightly different search. There is no doubt that psychology finds conversion a major topic. The article definitely needs work, but if that were a criterion for deletion we'd only have 34,928 good or featured articles in the encyclopedia. Nom should have done a quick due diligence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could be improved, but topics like conversion and deconversion (and more recently radicalization) have wide coverage. Important aspects of the psychology of religion. —Paleo Neonate – 00:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and schizophrenia

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

delete per WP:NOTESSAY, it seems User:TaylorNewton is a lecturer who in 2012 got his students to upload their work. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 09:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, essay is a very weak ground for deletion. Secondly, the status of article authors is scarcely ever relevant (barring writing about themselves). So to this topic: a Google Scholar search finds some 70,000 papers on the exact topic. This year (2017) alone yields some 3,400 papers. The topic is notable. The article itself (as if this mattered) is in fact already reliably sourced, but notability depends on what is out there in the world, not what may happen to be in an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could be improved but the topic is notable enough to have too much material for merging in the main schizophrenia article. —Paleo Neonate – 00:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition to a redirect being created later on as an {{r with possibilities}}. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzy (musician)

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

All refs are trivial, blogs or not independent. Nothing reliable and substantial . No evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Muzzy has released 6 EPs on a notable indie label (Monstercat), which should pass criteria 5. Micro (Talk) 12:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since part of the ethics of Monstercat is to provide a platform to allow new artists to release records, the use of that label does not suggest notability. There is no evidence that any of the releases achieved any chart success. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Monstercat is notable as a record label as it meets the GNG Micro (Talk) 01:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have done a guest mix for Radio 1, but the (download only) releases on Monstercat don't constitute two albums on one of the more important independent labels. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. No criterion of WP:NMUSIC satisfied. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monstercat as an alternative to deletion. Artist is only known through this label and currently has a mention there. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any significant coverage in reliable independent sources, so this fails WP:GNG. It has been commented that criterion 5 of WP:NMUSIC may be met by the 6 EP's released on Monstercat, after consideration I do not think this criteria is met. The Monstercat label is relatively close to being self-produced, not relevant industry releases. As none of the EP's charted of generated significant sales, I would say that they did not become relevant and therefore by extension have not contributed to the notability of this article. Dysklyver 13:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep after improvements to the article. Whether a similar list which may contain redlinks should be created in a WikiProject subpage is out of this discussion (i.e. of course any editor may create such a list in project space to facilitiate article creation and improvement). (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of female military historians

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

2 sources for entire list; not a single WL for names; not clear why being female is significant in this context. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 09:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a range of reasons, women only make up a small proportion of military historians. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Of the people listed at List_of_historians_by_area_of_study#Military_history, not one of them is obviously female. This suggests that female military historians may be notable (in a colloquial sense rather than necessarily in terms of WP:GNG) simply for being female military historians. Zazpot (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move. As it stands, the article seems ~~not to pass WP:GNG, but with work it might do, and~~ close to meeting WP:LISTN, per Joe's comment below. I am OK with keeping it.

Failing that, it is still likely to be of great use to Wikipedia efforts such as Women in Red and/or Gender gap task force, etc, and should be moved either to a sub-page of one of those WikiProjects, or to a sub-page of the user who created it, so that it can add value to Wikipedia without necessarily being in the article namespace. If at some point in the future it has been updated so as to pass WP:GNG and any other applicable policies, then at that point it could be moved back to the article namespace. Zazpot (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move: I agree with Zazpot unless some of the names on the list are already the subject of biographies. If so, a shortened linked list could be prepared for the main space.--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have Category:Military historians, no Category:Female military historians at present. The category's existing subdivisions are by nationality and topic/war of study. List of military historians redirects to List of historians by area of study#Military history. postdlf (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN in that the group has been the subject of significant coverage [14][15][16][17][18]. Women in traditionally male-dominated scholarly fields (i.e. all of them) are frequently notable, and we have many similar lists, e.g. List of women linguists, List of women classicists, List of women botanists. Based on some quick spot checks I think the majority of the entries could be blue-linked, so while better sourcing would be nice, it isn't strictly necessary. If kept it should be moved (back) to List of women military historians, because it's a list of people not lab specimens. – Joe (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I agree that "women" is more appropriate than "female": good point. About notability, I have little or no experience of WP:LISTN discussions. Is your claim that, "while better sourcing would be nice, it isn't strictly necessary", based upon WP:LISTN, or upon something else? I'm not asking because I disagree (I don't: I'm undecided at this moment) but only for clarity of understanding. Thanks :) Zazpot (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there are two things we need sources for with lists: first to demonstrate that the list itself is on a notable topic per WP:LISTN, but these won't necessarily be mentioned in the article itself; second to support the inclusion of individual entries and verify any details. In my experience editors are usually happy for entries to appear on a list without a supporting citation if we have an article on that entry which backs up the information (presumably with citations). See List of archaeologists for example; only the red-linked entries have citations. – Joe (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, ah OK, hence your remark about blue links. But if those are needed, then presumably the list as it stands is not yet ready for article space? Zazpot (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a long list, it wouldn't take a lot of effort to go through and add them, so I don't think their absence it's sufficient reason for deletion. We certainly have many lists that have been in much worse shape for years. – Joe (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Joe: This is a viable topic for a list given the coverage, and the article can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment assuming this is kept, as seems the consensus, it would still be natural to remove all the entries which are not WLed or appropriately sourced. Which is still almost all of them. And the list is rather long. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

el cid, el campeador, what do you think about moving it to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red or WikiProject Gender gap task force per my suggestion above? Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no disagreement here. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the sources Joe pointed to, I don't think the subject is generally notable. The list of names overwhelmingly contain NN entries and is largely unsourced. I don't think it makes sense to keep this article at this stage in the game; if anything, this is a good WP:TNT opportunity for another editor to start over from scratch. There are too few NN entries to excuse a category, either. Wikipedia needs a list of woman historians before a list of women in the sub-field of military history. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, what do you think about moving it to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red or WikiProject Gender gap task force per my suggestion above? Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: I'm not opposed in principle to making it a WikiProject subpage but Wikipedia:Userfication doesn't support that. Perhaps the content could be moved into your userspace for development. Be advised, your ping did not work. You might check the box under preferences for the interface to warn you when a ping fails. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: thanks for the heads-up about the ping and the preference. No idea why it didn't work. Did it work this time?

Puzzled by your saying, "Wikipedia:Userfication doesn't support that". Wikipedia:Userfication is just an essay. As we're the editors deciding what to do with the page, we can WP:IGNORE that essay, especially if we come up with a better outcome than the essay describes. IMO, moving the list into the namespace of an appropriate WikiProject is exactly such a case. Zazpot (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can WP:IGNORE anything, but I am be very uncomfortable with the idea of moving an article in the space of a project that has not expressed a desire for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: No, the ping did not work. I don't know why. Yes, it's just an essay but I think that essay enjoys pretty wide consensus and I prefer to stick with what this community agrees to do. Since you're invested in this list, I don't understand why you'd be opposed to moving into your userspace. I can see some editors agree with your suggestion and I won't fight consensus if it decides to move into WP-space; it's just a bit outside our norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, or move upon request to project space, Women in Red.~~ Almost none of the entries on the list do not have articles, and the notability of the subjects is unclear. Does not meet WP:LISTN and WP:SIGCOV; a non encyclopedic cross-categorisation at the moment. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, what do you think about moving it to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red or WikiProject Gender gap task force per my suggestion above? Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: Either one would work. It could be an interesting project. Just not ready for the mainspace yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of women military historian. Lorstaking (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too few people of proven notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, what do you think about moving it to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red or WikiProject Gender gap task force per my suggestion above? Zazpot (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, but the black links should go. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, thank you for the reply :) I'm a bit puzzled, though: are you saying you believe that black-linked entries should be deleted before a move into the namespace of one of those WikiProjects, even though the whole purpose of such a move would be to turn those black links into blue links before the page is restored to article space? If so, please could you explain the rationale behind your belief? Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~ to a sub-page of WikiProject Women in Red. The blue-links should be added to List_of_historians_by_area_of_study#Military_history if it is moved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Women in Red actually wants the page, but don't know for certain. If not, there's probably a user space that it can be moved to, that of Zazpot by default. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm we want the page. Dysklyver 19:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the subjects is clear enough to me. Many already have articles, although they could be improved. Sourcing would be easy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space without changes per power~enwiki & Zazpot. Dysklyver 16:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those suggesting a move to project or userspace: can you clarify what the purpose of such a move would be? If it's to provide a Women-in-Red-style "redlist" of articles for later creation, I'm not sure that would add much to the very long redlist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Historians. It would also seem to implicitly accept that most of the people in this list are notable, in which case what is the rationale for removing it from mainspace? Or if the idea is to incubate it with a view to returning it to mainspace at a later date, why can't it be left in place and improved in the same way? – Joe (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I already did, but to clarify: the reason for moving it to a sub-page of e.g. WP:WOMRED would be to provide a place where interested editors could work on it, safe from deletion attempts, until it reaches the point where no reasonable editor would propose it for deletion even in the article namespace, at which point it would be moved back to the latter.Zazpot (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I just wasn't sure if others were !voting with you for the same reasons. As mentioned I do have something of a pet peeve about this logic, per WP:IMPERFECT: if an article is on a viable encyclopaedic topic and isn't irrecoverably crap, I don't see any reason why it can't stay in mainspace while it is improved. But I realise that since draftspace came along many editors have come to disagree with me on that (although WP:IMPERFECT is still a policy!) – Joe (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As suggested by Ipigott and others, I've trimmed the list down to only blue-linked or verifiably notable people. I've also added a lead section and some references, and removed the table. I wasn't particularly thorough in checking if those without articles were potentially notable, and I noticed that the names mentioned here as two of the most influential women historians (Joanna Bourke and Amanda Foreman) weren't actually on the list, which suggests to me there is definitely room for expansion. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, your comment above caused me some WP:WIKISTRESS until I viewed the article's edit history and saw that you saved the rest of the list - with table formatting intact - to the article's talk page. Phew! Thanks for that :) I felt it was worth making this comment here, to spare other editors the same stress ;) Zazpot (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, honestly when I saw this a while ago I thought I'd be in favour of deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY mostly. But the subject has received significant commentary in reliable sources, so that's a clear pass of WP:GNG. The rest of the issues can be address through regular editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe, Headbomb. I lean weak for "lists of X in Y" type things, but see no reason to qualify the !vote in this case. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the cleanup, a move isn't called for. The content on the talk page can be moved to a project sub-page without an AfD discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, on notability; needs work; the clean up, helped. Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate that this is a notable subtopic. The list has been significantly cleaned up but I'd be in favor of additional tightening by removing the entries that have no bluelink and for which secondary sources cannot be found (currently, most of the unlinked entries are only primary-sourced). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the bluelinks only list. The references (mostly faculty profiles) didn't show notability. I'm not oppose to redlinks, but only if backed by sources that can be used to established WP:N. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Joe, Nick, etc. Clearly a notable topic, and as for the suggestion to move to project space, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If the topic is notable and the article is not irretrievably broken, there's no reason to move it out of main space. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe and Nick.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has been sufficiently improved in the course of this AfD and is suitable for retention. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Stone

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. No awards or significant coverage in secondary sources. Most sources seem to be about gossip (i.e. her family) and comments on her appearance. – Nihlus (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mentions, not enough in-depth.L3X1 (distænt write) 13:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drew G. Montalvo

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

AN old article which has been around since 2011 but has only one reference which is itself an interview with the subject. Searches found nothing reputable and reliable. No evidence of any notability. Much of this content is found elsewhere on the net without attribution and may well be copyvios. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor. But I came across this page yesterday after I added a link from a LeAnn Rimes album page. I then made a small change on this page. I was surprised to see this article as up for deletion when I went back to check my update. So I took it as an opportunity as a new editor to see if I could address the issue. It seems that there is a significant amount of supporting information specifically regarding the subject of the article's music production. I removed much of the promotional and hyperbolic tone of the article. I feel that the subject meets the criteria of notability. I would welcome any feedback on my edits. --BrainSprinkle (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite BrainSprinkle's efforts, the references are not reliable sources for notability purposes. The vast majority of them are music links for iTunes, etc. and the rest are either not independent of the subject or mere passing mentions in articles about some other artist or event. Neither WP:NMUSIC nor WP:GNG appears to have been met. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Eggishorn's assessment, the subject does, in fact, meet WP:NMUSIC. The criteria for musicians and ensembles says that having a single or album on a national music chart alone may meet notability criteria. As shown on the Billboard chart history (citation 17) the subject has 3 charted singles on the Billboard Dance Charts. For the most recent single release, Billboard wrote an article about the song, the artists, and the impressive debut on the Dance chart (citation 12). I would also challenge the assumed trivial nature of the subject's mention in Billboard articles. These articles are written about very prominent artists like Beyonce, LeAnn Rimes, Blondie, Ed Sheeran, and Madonna and their charting on the Dance charts. The entry for Dance Club Songs shows that remix producers and remix albums are a primary way artists achieve success in dance music. Naming the top remixers in this context, while brief, would hardly be considered trivial. I would also ask why the iTunes links were dismissed? These links show that this artist has been featured on commercially released remix albums for a number of prominent artists and on a number of major record labels. BrainSprinkle (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Technologies

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

fails WP:NORG. N.B. This company has the same name as a NASDAQ floated company but are unassociated. Domdeparis (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. No indications of notability or significance; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. gongshow talk 01:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete The consensus is that this album fails to meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MK III (album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Self released album from a barely notable band who's page will probably be nominated for deletion unless more sources are added. Domdeparis (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found to pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the caveat that if sources exist in the Mizo language, it can be recreated with these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eng Kan Ti Nge Keini Chhung Hi

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Seems to be self-produced movie without any supporting references. Shaded0 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 16:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the film is (ostensibly) a Mizo language production, it may very well be that there are sources that don't show up in an English or even Hindi search. I'll ping WikiProject India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches here, here, here, here hardly resulted in any reliable sources. Clearly fails GNG guideline. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above !votes. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UCL Emperors American Football

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

Very few British university sports teams are notable and this does not appear to be one of the exceptions. All references are connected to the subject with the possible exception of a blog post which appears to be related to one of its rivals. Google and other searches find nothing to demonstrate notability. Note that numerous similar articles were deleted back in 2009-10, e.g. Plymouth Blitz, Worcester Royals, and nothing of substance has changed since then in terms of profile of university-level American Football in the UK. Kahastok talk 22:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome should be to keep: The UCL Emperors are currently heading into their 2nd BAFA season. They hold the most successful record of any rookie team there has been in the UK having reached the Division 2 National Finals for American Football; a feat no other rookie team has ever reached. This Wikipedia article serves the purpose of chronicling their rise and falls throughout history - as any article would relating to a sports team. It also chronicles tradition, players and coaches of note, and records of achievement. Having been officially founded in 2015, and only entering BUCS in 2016, the Emperors, under ideal circumstances, could have only become national champions by the end of the 2019 season. If we were not to write about them until 2019 we would lose out on the possibility of several years worth of information that would be key to the teams elevation within the national circuit. UCL is also one of the largest and most prolific universities in the UK with many notable sports programmes. Mfoxallsmith (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for this position, Wikipedia rules are that we should not be the only source for anything - we should only ever be restating what other sources have already said.

Very few British university sports teams meet our standard - the Boat Race teams, those university cricket teams with first-class status, that sort of thing. Even BUCS champions generally don't enough to get the coverage needed to meet the standard, so even if we accept that this team will be potential champions in a few years this is insufficient.

What we need if we are to keep is a demonstration that this club "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The meaning of this phrase is described in detail at WP:GNG. I contend that such coverage does not exist.

Now, deletion does not mean you have to completely lose what's there. It can be emailed to you or probably moved to your user space if required. Per WP:LOSE, the fact that information would no longer be present on Wikipedia is not in and of itself a good reason not to delete. Kahastok talk 17:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike in the US, university sport is almost wholly non-notable in the UK ("crowds" usually consist of a couple of dozen of the teams' friends, and even the most parochial local newspaper doesn't cover it), and this team seems to be no exception. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:ORGSIG which states "No company or organisation is considered inherently notable. No organisation is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organisation it is." AusLondonder (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madlock

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

Does not meet notability guidelines(WP:BAND). The stated claim to notability is being in the top 6 of Pepsi Battle of the Bands, a music competition in Pakistan- but the notability guidelines state that one must be in the top three of a competition to merit an article. The sources given are all very brief mentions, either in relation to their TV appearance or not. The article states that they are working on their first album so that rules out the notability criteria related to a national tour or their album charting. I suspect it is too soon for an article about this band. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pepsi Battle of the Bands is a TV show as well as a competition, not being in the top 3 shouldn't be a bright-line reason to delete this. However, I agree it's WP:TOOSOON, I don't believe their work appears on any music charts and there's almost no coverage apart from their appearance on the show. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. The first 2 refs in the article have coverage apart from the ones regarding their appearance on the show. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfarazbaig: One of those is an interview, which is a primary source, and the other is a basic announcement. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Dircks

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

This is a ~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:BIO1E, albeit in a particularly sad way. Not sufficiently notable for an article. agtx 16:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it can add more on the sections of unusual deaths. Similar cases are in there, some of them still not expanded.--Julio Puentes (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 16:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cannot violate WP:BLP1E if they're dead. I see mentions in The Independent, Deseret News, Irish Times, Utusan via Reuters, a paragraph in Miami New Times, and a few pages in a book published by Plough Publishing House. That's multiple news articles, coming from 5 different countries (and that's only in English, there may be more in German). --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair that it's not technically a BLP1E. WP:BIO1E was the correct guideline. agtx 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not BLP1E, but the bio doesn't meet GNG. I would describe [19] as "News of the Weird"-style newspaper filler, not significant secondary coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Estate

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

Non notable cigar brand, self-moved into mainspace by creator. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article's only citation is self-published. It doesn't indicate that the brand has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that suggest it passes corporate notability standards, nor can I find any myself. It's quite strange that a seven-year-old userspace draft has just been moved into the mainspace like that, luckily the edit filter caught it which is how I presume Jcc found it? DrStrauss talk 17:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Yep- exactly that :) jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author, forgot I had made it back in the day and decided, based on a suggestion on its talk page that it seemed nearly ready for publication, to put it up. I understand the references are self published but its ACID brand of cigars are pretty popular, to the point that they even have a cigarillo version available at most gas stations (at least here in central Ohio.) It was my first attempt at a new article and not just edits and the information is all factual. Here is a recent news article referencing the brand: https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/19573 (W.A.A. IV (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep: Not sure what the threshold is for a cigar brand to be notable, and this article's creator needs a WP:TROUT for using a single self-pub source, but I'm finding additional sources that indicate notability, or at least that it's a legit company. If someone wants to try a WP:HEY and save this article, try adding content from these sites. Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC): Another Cigar Aficionado article, interview, ad description from a supplier, review.[reply]

Those sources aren't sufficient- the review is from what looks to be a self-published source, and the ad description from a supplier is exactly that- it'd be like claiming an Amazon listing is sufficient for notability. The Cigar Aficionado article is the only acceptable source but "demonstrating that it's a legit company" is not equivalent to notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:Promo page on an unremarkable cigar brand; significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited exclusively to the company's own web site; there's not even an attempt to make the article presentable. Basically, corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Saremi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR .Lacks third party sources about the article subject or even his works. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails gng. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carolingians descended from Charles Martel

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

This is somebody's personal exercise in trying to trace all of the supposed descendants of someone famous, but includes whole sections that are dubious, and the only citation is to a primary source that contains almost none of the material shown. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Agricolae (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to separate list status for readability from the original article. Since then it has had a lot of editing, although not a lot of different editors, but nobody has claimed it is factually inaccurate. Do you have any reason to think it is wrong? I note that many of the entries have their own articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's start by evaluating the few relationships that are not supported by the cited source - oh, my bad, almost all of the relationships are unsupported by the cited source. Agricolae (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. The Carolingian dynasty is without a doubt a highly notable group, and writing about them goes beyond genealogy. Any problems with accuracy or inadequate sourcing are surmountable. The title is a little redundant (all Carolingians are descended from Charles Martel, him being the 'Carol' in 'Carolingian'), so if kept I suggest it be moved to List of Carolingians or List of descendants of Charles Martel. – Joe (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is not a list - it is named as if it was a List but the arrangement is that of a genealogy and it is being used to claim specific relationships, some of which are highly speculative. Agricolae (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-standard formated article, that verges on an indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (on second thoughts). The Carolingian family tree is a notable subject. It might have been presented in a different format, but that does not matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (third thought) REname to Carolingian family tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Carolingian family tree, since WP:N and correct name. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. We could use a Carolingian family tree, just not this one. Srnec (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a good candidate for WP:TNT delete; unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I do think the Carolingian dynasty is notable, this is not serving any use as an article, however it could be archived in userspace, or archived in Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Holy Roman Empire task force for reference. Elements of this 'family tree' are used in various articles, and this is a good overview. perhaps it could be used as part of another article like Outline of Carolingian dynasty within the outline article format, for which this could be well suited with modifications. Dysklyver 13:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Rule (card game)

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

Appears to be a hoax, as other users have already noted. None of the three cited sources in the article now mention this purported "rule" at all, much less back up the claims they are cited to support. Even if it is not a hoax, this article clearly fails WP:GNG and other relevant notability guidelines (especially WP:Verifiability). Everymorning (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completed a good faith Google search and could not find anything reliable and nothing that did not appear to be derived from this article. I am 99% sure that this is a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. I'm amazed that the article survived for over four years without being picked up - so my congratulations to Everymorning for finding this and getting it rightfully deleted.

Any passing admins: is this worthy for the hoax museum when the article is deleted? GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 08:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Children's Playground

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dead Children's Playground

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

Largely unreliable sources. Unreferenced statements of paranormal nonsense. Limited notability. This should be deleted. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FRINGE topic. Most of this article was written before the only reliable source cited ([20]) was published, and that source may have been derived from this Wikipedia article (see Talk:Dead Children's Playground#Possible plagiarism). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's definitely a circular reference situation. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prose is credulous and the references are very bad for a variety of reasons. The "best" reference appears to be a later paraphrase of this crappy article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green parking lot

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

This really belongs in the main parking lot article, at least at each's current size. Merger or deletion would both be workable. Anmccaff (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Parking lot.~~ Source searches in GBooks, GScholar and Gnews are providing some coverage, but there may not be enough available to qualify a standalone article. The merge target article has no mention, so merging would improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (struck my !vote above) – Available sources demonstrate notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A "Green+parking+lot" Google Books search shows a lot of coverage of this topic in many books, and I believe that it is a discrete topic sufficiently different from the broad topic of "parking lot" that it deserves its own article, instead of being buried deep in another article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge to Parking lot. I only found one book specifically mentioning "Green parking lot" when doing the same google books search as Cullen328. Based on that and other book searches I agree with Northamerica1000 that there isn't enough there to have a stand-alone article. While other green technologies or adaptations of previous articles have been accepted like Green vehicle, Green building and Natural building, I believe it's simply WP:TOOSOON for this one. As the parking lot article does have a section on alternative paving materials I don't see why this section couldn't simply be expanded to list alternatives to pavement altogether or have additional section added mentioning ways in which some places are trying to make parking lots more "green". In the future if a new article is warranted a split can occur. In addition, I noted that the source cited for the Environmental Protection Agency refers to "Green parking lot" in the title, however even the table of contents lists the word "green" is in quotes before "parking lot". - Vanstrat (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon looking again my searches were mistyped and Cullen328 was correct, there is more coverage than I initially found (not only in Google books but news searches in library databases came up with quite a bit). The article just needs work and links can be added from Parking lot. While I thought that the results would tend to show "a parking lot that is the colour green" as being the most recognised for the phrase "Green parking lot", that was not the case. - Vanstrat (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and what sort of coverage did you see that suggested this should be separated from "Parking lot?" Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same google books search that I believe Cullen328 did, and I looked through several of the entries to see the level of detail. One of the library news searches can be seen here. I think there are enough sources and enough detail in them. - Vanstrat (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also more than enough sources for "concrete parking lot", "Gravel parking lot", "asphalt parking lot", "temporary parking lot", "soil-cement parking lot,' &cet, &cet, ad. naus. Why should this be a separate article any more than those? Anmccaff (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all routine and predictable variations of standard parking lots, Anmccaff. A parking lot that, for example, generates solar power, is a sufficiently discrete topic to support its own article.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single technique mentioned in the Wiki article is, in fact, a routine and predictable variations of standard techniques, most of which have been used, often for environmental reasons -although perhaps not by that name - for over a century. Again, what justifies a separate article, especially considering what this one looked like until recently? Anmccaff (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason Brick building isn't a wikipedia article but Green building is. It's not always about the number of sources, it's about the content. As I said above: "I looked through several of the entries to see the level of detail". And as WP:N states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". You can see the difference between the books that come back on a book search for "Gravel parking lot" and "Green parking lot". (And it's not about the current article. It needs work.) - Vanstrat (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet, Frame building? The essential difference I see is that "green parking lots" are not a oddity, as "green building" still is, and all of the information relevant to "Green parking lots" should be...and indeed is in the main article, even if it could use some expansion there. This is just a POV fork, and, over most of its life, a coatrack. Anmccaff (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet Green roof is also an article, an arguably good one at that. Blue roof even has it's own. With work this article can get better based on the sources available, and WP:N isn't a question anymore in my mind from what's out there. - Vanstrat (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and when it does become a good article, we will have two nearly identical articles, covering almost exactly the same subjects; i.e., at least a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and likely a WP:POV Fork. This is good how, exactly? Anmccaff (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definitions given for those forks I don't see how they apply to this distinct subject. - Vanstrat (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cazza

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

contested prod.Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH ,this company was established in 2016 and best is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON paid article created by a Sockfarm Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it was my proposal to delete (PROD). Issues include that the article fundamentally depends on crystal ball speculation as to whether this 3D building technique will even be utilized. Press regurgitating the company's own speculative announcements does not substantiate notability. Note that most of the sources closely follow an orchestrated press campaign by Cazza and UAE. Either January-February 2017 following this 2016-12-27 or other like this – even the title of the latter "Cazza to build the first 3D printed Skyscraper in the world" was repeated with minor variation by several sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question if this is known to have been created by a banned user (via sockpuppet), why can't we use WP:G5 to dispose of it? ~Kvng (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure is only to G5 if other GF editors haven't made substantial edits. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly the page creator was blocked per NOTHERE and behaviourally isn't linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaplipa. SmartSE (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand these answers. Too much wikilingo. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. References are based on company announcements and/or quotations and are not intellectually independent, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; 100% promotional with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Festival of Film

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

Local short-lived film festival, with virtually no in-depth coverage. In fact, the only hits I'm getting are to this Wikipage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found 6 additional news articles about the film festival and added as links under Further Reading section. Tjgrable (talk)Tjgrable

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Berlin International Literature Festival. (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Extraordinary Book

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising & WP:COI. The Banner talk 14:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be a copy of the german wp article also created by DasKunstwerk, so the talkpage should have a tag to that affect. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and Children´s and Young Adult Program of the Berlin International Literature Festival to Berlin International Literature Festival. Basically this is advertisement for this festival, and there seems to be not much secondary coverage as per WP:GNG. —Kusma (t·c) 08:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (but attempt to find German speaking editors willing to find sources first) this and Children´s and Young Adult Program of the Berlin International Literature Festival to Berlin International Literature Festival. I could not find English sources, but there may be German editors who can find sources written in Germany. It appears to have a number of notable people involved.Knox490 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sources are hard to digest into something concrete. Most recipients are notable in their own right. Jurors seem to gain real-world notability from being involved. But I can't see enough substance yet for a standalone article. Agathoclea (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skos Shuttle (software)

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

Seems like an advertisement for a non-notable software. I can't find any sourcing that demonstrates GNG. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 23:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created and maintained by two WP:SPA accounts, linking to the primary site. The best coverage found in my searches is a page in a review of several classification tools here with an opinion that "Skos Shuttle seems to be a very promising tool". However I don't see that as sufficient to demonstrate attained encyclopaedic notability, by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This software is 1. notable and 2. accessible/present de-facto online, 3. generous and free for universities and students. Why deleting even a modest article on it a priori? You prefere to support notable commercial software which is sold for much money ? Please take back your request for deletion. It is a mistake or a lobby driven wish. And please do this change sustainably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.170.127 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep argument above amounts to nothing more than "it exists" DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 08:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courier (email client)

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am no Wikipedia guru and cannot reference specific articles or guidelines, but this topic is encyclopedic in that it documents the brief history of an email client that is still used by a following on a Yahoo group (as mentioned in the article). What is the specific concern? Dskirk (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's true, references about Courier (email client) are hard to find amongst the server and Android apps of the same name. Ten years this article has been wanting references. Time to clean house. WP:V Oh, and the link to Rose City is irrelevant and promotional. Rhadow (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states Calypso was older name of this E-mail client. There is a review of Calypso in the InfoWorld magazine:

Heck, Mike (April 4, 1999). "Calypso provides solid access to many accounts". InfoWorld. Vol. 21, no. 14. IDG. pp. 65, 67. ISSN 0199-6649.

There are also reviews of "Calypso Message Center" from the same company (Micro Computer Systems). Probably related, but not the same product:

Freed, Les (October 20, 1998). "Tame Your E-Mail, Calypso Message Center". PC Magazine. Vol. 17, no. 18. Ziff Davis. p. 228. ISSN 0888-8507.
Gibbs, Mark (April 12, 1999). "The art of automation". Network World. Vol. 16, no. 15. IDG. pp. 49–50. ISSN 0887-7661. (comparison of 3 applications) Pavlor (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Why don't we MOVE this article to Calypso (email client) which will have good references provided by Pavlor? We need to change Calypso DAB as well. Rhadow (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I somewhat rewrote the article using sources of variable quality. There are probably more reviews of Calypso in paper magazines of the late 1990s, but these are hard to get online. Pavlor (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are available RS about this application, but not in quantity I would like. Scarcity of online accessible magazine scans plays role there. Development of this application ended during the published magazines era, which explains next to no RS online coverage. Pavlor (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus to delete is not clear, and an apparently reliable source was added after the last delete vote. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bansuri Utsav

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

fails WP:GNG the sources are mostly routine what's on coverage. Domdeparis (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, not enough sources. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article does need to be cleaned up a bit, there are enough reliable sources for the subject of this article. Thus, it should be kept, as the content can be verified. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not able to find a lot of coverage beyond the entries in the local entertainment section which usually contains a list of "what's on" in the city. For an event in mylumbai, the coverage is quite weak. Let me look for more.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Flatulence. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly fart

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

Subjective and indiscriminate, seemingly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which doesn't appear mergeable. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibly rename to flatus. -

Just because the title may be offensive to some does not alter the fact that this is legitimate article about a legitimate topic which has been legitimately studied by legitimate scientists in response to legitimate concerns by legitimate members of the public. (its totally legit) - I won't bother with the toliet humor, this is not the place.

On a more serious note, this article is about the actual fart itself, that is, the cloud of gas. Obviously it can't be merged with flatulence, which is about the medical condition, and the human condition of actually creating a fart. (like how singing and song are separate). The fart once released is a physical object which deserves an article, as a highly relevant topic to everyone who hasn't managed to somehow avoid ever releasing a 'fart'.

I am not adverse to this being renamed to something more scientific, I just went with the common term.

Finally I will draw a comparison to Feces and Defecation, in this situation flatus and flatulence, one is about the object/thing emitted, one is about the process by which the human body emits it. Dysklyver 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Flatulence. Half the sources don't even use those words in that order at all. The ones that do just happen to use those words in that order, and not discuss this in any way as if it is a distinct phenomenon from simply flatulence. We ought not be in the habit of making "adjective articles" unless they're treated in depth by the sources as a distinct topic. Just because you can do a google search for "tall horse" and get lots of hits doesn't mean that "tall horse" is a distinct topic from "horse", some of which happen to be tall. It just means that some people happened to use those words in that order in passing. GMG ^talk 23:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I see the point that Dysklyver is stating, I see it a bit differently. Shit and Fuck have their own articles which talk about the words themselves, the fact that they are vulgar and the use of the words. Shit contains a hatnote directing to defecation for the act itself and defecation is not discussed in "Shit". The problem with Smelly fart is that it's claiming in the hatnote and top section to be about the phrase itself... but then goes on to talk about the act of farting itself, referring to it as flatulence which is already an existing article. As far as I can see the respected term for "farting" is actually "flatulating" (like the respected term for "shitting" is defecation). I don't see "flatulating" and "flatulence" as warranting separate articles. I'd say that this article could be merged with Flatulence to add info regarding the act of flatulating that isn't there already... but there simply is not enough useful information here to warrant it. "Flatus" is the gas itself, "flatulence" is the act of generating it, and "flatulating" is the act of expelling it. These can be discussed in the same article as "flatus" and "flatulence" already are. If fart isn't "vulgar enough" to have it's own article about the word itself, like Shit and Fuck, then "Smelly fart" definitely can't. - Vanstrat (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fart. Come on guys, let's wind this up. DrStrauss talk 22:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to flatulence. This is basically a definition of the word, meaning that it fails WP:NOTDICT, and thus should be deleted or redirected. In this case, since there is a valid redirect, it should be redirected. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album)#Tour as a compromise between keeping and deleting. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LA to the Moon Tour

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

PROD removed without explanation. Not a notable tour (per NTOUR), which is understandable since it hasn't happened yet. The coverage is purely standard, consisting of little more than "She's going on tour" followed by a list of dates. Needless to say, the article doesn't pass the GNG either. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an argument? One that addresses NTOUR? Drmies (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album)#Tour for now. To warrant a standalone article, WP:NTOUR encourages coverage relating to "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience". Such coverage will likely exist in a couple months once the tour begins, but in the meantime, existing sources merely establish that a tour is going to happen, which the guideline says is "not sufficient to demonstrate notability." gongshow talk 08:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NTOUR with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Akhiljaxxn, please show us just one single in-depth discussion of the tour. The best source is this announcement--maybe a half a dozen sentences, none of them discussing the tour in any substantive manner. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic surveillance system

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

How does this pass GNG? Very few hits across journals et al.A redirect target may be sought after. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why this is even a separate article. Does not have any notability by itself. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten and expanded the article to include several paragraphs backed by 10 reliable sources, all secondary for the basic facts they support. DSS are an important part of public health monitoring in developing countries. The multiple RS in the article, including two books, show notability per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At presentthe article seems satisfactory; enough references to show notability. I'd be surprised otherwise .as I thought it was a well known concept. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new version (thanks MV) seems to be well defined and notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JSC News

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

Could not find any Encyclopediac content in this article. It's written more of a advertising or "for your info" style. Wondering how come such a page existed in Wikipedia for this much time. -223.186.97.118 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC). (AfD nomination completed on behalf of IP per request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Delete No third-party citations and purely promotional. Brian-armstrong (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, per the discussion already extant on the page, trimming appropriately (which may end up making it much more like a redirect) per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church per Jclemens.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church; there's nothing to merge as the article lists no 3rd party sources. JSC News is the name of org's web site (www.jscnews.org), so a straight redirect is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Gomes

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

Fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, in that he is only a senior executive of a non-notable company. Dan arndt (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator says Gomes does not meet notability for businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, but why was this article created . so funny Samat lib (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple RS present: [21] [22] [23] [24]. Cossde (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source as most of its content is largely user-generated (see WP:IMDBREF). Dan arndt (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anyone going to address the remaining three sources? Pinging Dan arndt, Randomeditor1000, Samat lib, and JPL.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ref [1] is all about Hela Clothing, (a non-notable company) and Dominic McVey, with side mentions about Gomes, as well as a number of other non-notable individuals. Ref [2] is IMDB. Ref [3] is about Hela Clothing. Ref [4] is about a self published autobiography by Gomes, by no details about whether the book was notable or even if copies of it actually sold or not. Even the author of the article questions it’s legitimacy. Dan arndt (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I concur with Dan arndt's evaluation of the references. IMDB is user submitted information, the others are not notable. I do not think this article passes muster as is. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 FIA Formula One World Championship

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

Way to soon. I can see no difference with the rationales presented for deleting the 2020 season article. No specific content for 2019 has been published (e.g. new tracks or new driver contracts starting in 2019). This is just as much listing the multiple year contracts signed for an earlier season as the 2020 article is. T v x1 12:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is a significant difference between the 2018 and 2019 articles—namely that five of the top six drivers (Ricciardo, Verstappen, Räikkönen, Bottas and Hamilton) are out of contract at the end of 2018 and it has been public knowledge that some of the top teams have been sounding out those drivers. On top of that, Carlos Sainz's one-year deal with Renault will expire, and Red Bull do not have an engine deal in place beyond 2018. The encyclopaedic value of the article is not so much in what is confirmed, but in what is unresolved (as opposed to there being no information available). A lot of the critical analysis I have seen (such as this) supports this. We have a section in the list of races that notes which events are contracted for 2018 but not for 2019, so I think a section on drivers and teams who are free agents in 2019 (for want of a better term) is not only justified, but adds to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Prisonermonkeys (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD. [reply]
- Comment: I have updated the article with details of drivers out of contract. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you are genuinely suggesting now that we create and keep an article because of an "important" lack of verifiable information?? That's the most ridiculous argument I have ever read. What is so special about this situation? A Mercedes and Ferrari spot being possibly available isn't even unique for 2019. Bottas and Räikkönen had one-year contracts for 2017 as well, so that situation exist for the 2018 season as well. In fact, prior to Vettel extending his contract this summer, no 2018 Ferrari spot was filled. And that article wasn't created until December when some new 2018 information was published (the return of the French GP). We should create this article when new 2019 driver and/or race contracts are being announced. At this moment there is no difference between the 2019 and the 2020 articles. Both exist solely to tabulate the remain years on multiple-year contracts. Information which is easily conveyed in the individual articles. The last time the 2018 article was deleted, you supported the deletion and stated that a season article should only be created up to eighteen months in advance if significant new information about is known. Well, I don't see any significant new information for 2019 yet. So you should practice what you preach. And by the way, Verstappen's contract is NOT running out at the end of 2018.Tvx1 16:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: First of all, it is not a lack of verifiable information. We can verify that those drivers' contracts expire at the end of 2018 and thus there is currently a change for 2019. To claim so otherwise is to misrepresent the situation. Furthermore, removing reliable, well-sourced content to strengthen the case for an AfD is pretty under-handed. Secondly, why am I obligated to support this deletion simply because I supported a previous one? Why am I not allowed to change my mind? Why am I not allowed to assess each individual AfD on its merits and make a decision accordingly? Finally, in your AfD for the 2020 article, you said "One article on the upcoming season is already quite a task to manage. Two is already over the limit." which sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How quaint. Just as you claim I don't like it, your position can summarized as WP:ILIKEIT. Your just perceiving the number of out of contract drivers as being "sensational" when in fact is just something that happens nearly every year. Prior to this summer Vettel, Räikkönen, Bottas, Pérez, Vandoorne, Alonso, Palmer, Massa, Stroll, Ericsson, Wehrlein and Kvyat were all without contracts. The 2019 situation is hardly unique as you can see. And if that wasn't enough you're requesting to keep this based on your speculation that there will be a "similarly sensational" set of driver changes will take place, while for all I know they (or at least most of them) might just stay put. The 2018 article was deleted in late august 2018 for the exact same reasons as everyone (including you) wants the 2020 article deleted and this one was nominated. There is no significant new 2019 information known yet and therefore I cannot see how the many delete rationales presented in the 2020 AFD'd don't apply here. And just because content is well sourced it isn't automatically relevant to the subject. That's why I removed. I'd say that inventing new, never before used tables in a misguided attempt to keep this article is much more of an underhand tactic.T v x1 09:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We usually create season articles about ~18 months in advance, and this is 18 months beforehand. Also per Prisonermonkeys the uncertainty of many drivers is in itself notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we create season articles when verifiable new information for that specific season is available. The 2018 article was created in late December 2016. Or more or less 12 months before the the start of the year 2018.T v x1 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is exactly the same case as for the 2020 season article. Similarly there is no apparent policy-based reason for not keeping the article, and that is what is required for a deletion request to succeed. WP:TOOSOON has been mentioned, but that is an essay relying on this policy-based statement: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." As it is clear that this article satisfies the policy on notability, specifically from WP:GNG that it has gained sufficient coverage in reliable sources, then there is no apparent justification for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet there is no evidence of this significant coverage in reliable sources. As of yet, no new driver contract, new race contract or rule change for the 2019 championship had been announced. A passing mention of the year in an article discusding a driver or a team or a different season is not the same as significant coverage. In fact, when you click on the find sources button on top of this AFD. Barely 8 links are produced, none of which contain any meaningful information about the 2019 championship. So if you want your policy or guideline that is failed here, it's WP:Notability. Judging by your ridiculous claim there is significant coverage of this subject, it's safe to say that you did not bother to do even a quick search for sources before leaving your comment here.Tvx1 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are currently 25 reliable sources used to support the driver and Grand Prix data in the article. And the search mentioned (even though it only looks for exact matches on on the complete article title, and not for other aspects of the 2019 season) turns up 8 hits. So clearly, the event is already notable per WP:GNG. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of these 25 uses reliable sources contains significant coverage of new information relating to the 2019 season. They just mention multiple-year contracts which are extrapolated to be also valid for this article. As I have explained before, passing mentions do not have any value in determining notability. And as I have also previously explained before, those 8 search hits do NOT contain any meaningful information about the 2019 championship. I'm beginning to think you do not understand our notability guidelines. There is literally no source right now which covers anything significant new thing for the 2019 championship.Tvx1 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:GNG defines significant coverage as coverage that addresses "the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." There is no requirement for the article to cover any "significant new thing". The 25 reliable sources used certainly provide significant coverage addressing the topic directly without needing original research and add up to provide the necessary significant coverage. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete, I've changed my mind following the deletion of the 2020 article that significant coverage per WP:GNG does not mean a passing mention in 25 sources, but detailed coverage in each of a few sources, and this article does not conform to that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is an almost identical AfD being discussed here for the 2020 FIA Formula One World Championship. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the outcome of one AfD should not affect the outcome of another. Reading the comments of both AfDs, it is clear (so far) that the community thinks it is WP:TOOSOON for the 2020 article, but not for 2019. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit early to judge the "community"'s opinion just not even 24 hours after this AFD was launched, don't you think. There is a reason AFD's have a minimum running time of 7 days, you know.T v x1 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no !vote, by the standard application of WP:TOOSOON it's probably a few months too soon, but deleting it seems overkill. Could this be moved to draft space until early 2018? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That’s certainly worth considering.Tvx1 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Kante4 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree. Most of the opposition to this article stems from one editor's statement that managing two articles for future championships is difficult. At last count, I was managing eight articles for future championships (including this one) without a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? You call one of them being put under full protection twice not a problem?Tvx1 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's not a problem because the issue was contextual. It had to do with the validity of a source, with a deliberately-disruptive editor thrown in for good measure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 14 October 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, 6 October 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)}}} 21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have had season articles about this event since 1950, and as long as there is some unique content to include, which there is, there seems no reason to delete this specifically because it has been created a bit early. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what unique content would you be talking about??T v x1 20:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the grand scheme of things the 2019 season is not actually that far away, I personally don't think it can qualify as WP:TOOSOON as contracts and signings will be planned months and years in advance. Deleting the article at this point would be pointless as by the beginning of 2018 there will already be news coming for plans for the 2019 season.Theprussian (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the information doesn't exist now. And the reality is that new 2019 contracts are most likely only to be signed twelve months from now. Right now they are singing up for 2018, not 2019. In fact right now, this article doesn't even pass the WP:GNG. It can always be moved to a draft and be republished as an article when specific information for 2019 becomes available.T v x1 16:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's the season after next, which is not TOOSOON to have the article. There are drivers that have contracts for 2019 already. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I am an editor from huwiki, I only have a few edits here on enwiki but I am one of the main contributors to F1 articles in huwiki. I am also the one who started the brother page of the 2019 season in Hungarian at the end of September. Why do I think it should be kept? The article is already started. It is (or will be in a few months) without doubt notable, I think we can all agree on that. So if it is already started, why bother deleting it, just to create it like 3 months later again? It does not take up space or anything. There are millions of pages on enwiki, it does no harm if this one sole page stays here for 2-3 more months with this "little" content. When 2018 starts, new contracts will be announced for 2019, tracks and race calendar will be confirmed, new regulations will be announced. Also, if you think this article is too soon, what about 2030 FIFA World Cup? This article will slowly get into focus, and already has verifiable information, like 2 contracted top-drivers, or tracks who are already under contract. It just does not make sense to delete it. It is also easier to add pieces of confirmed information one by one to an existing article then to collect all of them like a year later. People might already be interested in 2019, they come here and see the drivers who are already contracted, the tracks, the new rules and so on. If you delete it, it is only a matter of time than you have to make it again. Then why bother? --XXLVenom999 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Assala Nasri. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wala Tessaddeq

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. What little coverage I can find is insignificant and comes nowhere close to satisfying the aforementioned notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 12:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable album, "Among her most famous albums are "Eghdab i.e. Get angry "،" Wala tessadda 'i.e. Do not believe "، ([25]), "... وكذلك نجاح شريطها الثاني «ولا تصدق» من كلمات..." (https://books.google.com/books?id=7wtIAQAAIAAJ) --Soman (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the album mentioned in the last source sorry? You seem to be arguing against the deletion of the musician's article, something which I have not nominated. DrStrauss talk 15:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The passage "شريطها الثاني «ولا تصدق", which can refer to both the album and the song. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. There isn't a standalone article on the song, if there was, it would most likely fail WP:NSONG. DrStrauss talk 21:42, 9 October 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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not at all notable. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Assala Nasri per WP:ATD-R. A Train^talk 09:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yumnam

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Source searches and news searches reveal no independent, reliable coverage of either the group or the term. DrStrauss talk 13:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst the article requires some copy-editing, I don't see notability as an issue. The name is clearly common, and as is often the case in the region it appears to denote a community in itself. See for example https://books.google.com/books?id=wLzDLsEYZGQC&pg=PA36 , https://books.google.com/books?id=Qs4BAAAAMAAJ [p. 76] etc.. --Soman (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just passing mentions. Your argument boils down to passing mentions and it exists. That doesn't satisfy GNG. DrStrauss talk 15:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the stub. Without any references or specific people of this name, I'm not sure how the article can be kept. But they possibly do exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 3 October 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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 13:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article has no references as it sits. This information would be better served on the Meitei people page. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article has no references, or any information. If there is information on this, I feel like it would be just as likely to be brought forward from nothing as this stub. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snapped Ankles

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

A speedy was declined because they are 'associated with a notable label' (hardly blue note or Stiff) & that there are sources. Flavy sources imo. Theis is a bunch of non-notable wannabees. And post-punk?? Punk ceased to be interesting thirty snecking years ago. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fail all WP:BIO, however NOT Anough significant coverage on wikipedia multiple sources , i mean Reliably sources. Samat lib (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They had a session broadcast on Marc Riley's BBC 6 Music show ([26]), and have received enough coverage, e.g. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. I would expect most of the UK music mags to review the album (released today), and likely one or two broadsheets over the weekend. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's findings; coverage exists on the subject in reliable sources. gongshow talk 06:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: their album Come Play the Trees has been reviewed in the October 2017 issue of Mojo. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another album review: [32]. --Michig (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ansh 666 01:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Group

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

No in-depth coverage. Name-checks only. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Greenbörg (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable conglomerate, based on the article's content. See this coverage by Forbes for example. Also covered in other reliable news refs. Mar4d (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just redid the article with 9 references including many newspapers. Clearly a major conglomerate company of Pakistan with a lot of news coverage. It was just a 'neglected' article.Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked the 9 references added to the article. Normally Forbes is a poor source for references but in this case there at first glance, appears to be a substantial independent article that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The first problem is that the article mostly concerns the activities of Saif Energy and not the holding company, Saif Group (the subject of this topic), although later on in the article the contributor switches to talk about Saif Group. The second problem is that halfway through the article, we start to see quotations from Javed Khan, an officer of the company. That would call into question the intellectual independence of the article and I would say it fails the criteria (WP:ORGIND) on that basis. The reference from nation.com.pk fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere mention in passing and has no indepth details. the pakistan-stocks.blogspot.ie reference fails for many reasons - it is a blog and therefore not a reliable source, but it is also a normal business listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH too. Similarly, the pagespak.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere listing. The brecorder.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement and is not intellectually independent. The following three references fail as they are from the saifgroup website and therefore are a PRIMARY source. The dawn.com reference is an obituary for the "patron of Saif Group" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere mention-in-passing. Finally, the pakistantoday.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is also a mention in passing. I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote if two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:59, 3 October 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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete this article. It has references that are secondary, and is written ok. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody has submitted any new references since 30th September and no new arguments (or !votes) based on policy or guidelines have been put forward. I'm happy to wait a little longer to see if any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability turn up but it doesn't look like it is going to happen. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing administrator – I would recommend a no consensus closure if no more !votes are added as the arguments seem to be evenly split. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources are just about adequate for a non-public facing company based in a non-English speaking country. Dysklyver 23:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a publicly traded company (WP:LISTED) w/ $2B in revenue passes my personal threthold for corporations :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we write about this company without WP:OR if we remove content which is not per WP:RS. I failed to verify that company earns revenue of $2B. WP:LISTED doesn't mean notable. Greenbörg (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough sources identified in this discussion to pass WP:GNG as I disagree that they should be discounted 19:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep I'm sometimes a little skeptical about thissort of article, but the firm is certainly important enough to be notable, as shown by the references. Some cleanup will be necessary, and I have just done it. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Derby Award for Best Supporting Actress

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

Starting small on this one, but it does seem to be part of a fairly sizable collection of associated articles. I'm not at all even able to establish that the parent article about the awards in general is notable. Most or all of the articles on the individuals who were supposed to win these things fail to mention the award entirely.

I found passing mention about how this is a minor award and not very important, and plenty of passing mentions like this because they were talking about something else entirely, but nothing whatsoever to suggest that this is a notable award, and definitely not to suggest that we should have the giant mound of unsourced content about living persons that this sub-article is. GMG ^talk 17:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bebe & Bassy Tour

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

Per WP:NTOUR, sources only indicate the existence of the tour, not its notability. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of album-related deletion discussions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's about a tour that hasn't happened yet. Maybe, once it has happened, there'll be sources that write aboout it, and justify the creation of an article. Maproom (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NTOUR. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Moves can be discussed via WP:RM. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gadk

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

Source search suggests that the club fails club notability standards. Ineligible for speedy as it makes a credible claim of significance. DrStrauss talk 18:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (probably) The search reported above was run on the abbreviated name only: a search on the full name of the club (Göteborgs amatördykarklubb) shows quite a nnumber of newspaper articles in Swedish--I have not yet tried to read them, but there is a sufficient number to make it likely that the club is notable . DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: the newspaper articles I've encountered doing a similar search, when translated, do not give significant coverage and are passing mentions only. DrStrauss talk 10:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per search for sources. It pops up several. Low article quality but no reason for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still very little discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Göteborgs amatördykarklubb. Desperately needs cleanup. Their primary website looks to be [33], not [34]. The Swedish Wikipedia does not appear to have an article on this. Gadk is an acronym that appears to mostly be their domain name rather than their common name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PHPWind

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is a challenge. There is not much sourcing in English, but it is possible there is sourcing in Chinese. The machine translations are bad enough I cannot tell. --Mark viking (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be a WP:MILL PHP chat board, and there's no claim of it meeting WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peak 3025 (Vermont)

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

We include all named geographic features of any significance at all. This is not a named feature. It's an unnamed feature. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lack of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cough cough Apparently the bad blood over relisting is was shed earlier today so here's my 2¢. If it wasn't PROD'd (which I believe is a useless dangerous process that shoulb be eliminate from the Wikipedia diet) and no one came and !voted, then relist it. Now I know relisting something you !voted in isn't great practice, but I endorse deletion for this one per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert twice, but, the instructions at WP:NOQUORUM are pretty clear; If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD. A relist should also be completed by an administrator if they feel the nomination is controversial, which, coincidentally, is a thing non-admins are told not to do; Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. This would be preferred to wasting another week to receive no new comments. I have no idea what bad blood you're referring to? all I did was revert because it was improper and this was on my watchlist in case new developments came up. I didn't feel I had anything to add. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominating rationale and in the hope that there won't be a third week of this. I had done a google and google books search for the peak at the time of the nomination and found only the smallest references to it possible; primarily "listsofjohn" and maybe this reference to a nameless peak at 3025ft. The only thing to note, is that the unnofficial name, alluded to but not stated in the article, for the mountain is Seth Warner Mountain and I found even less about the mountain searching for that. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NGEO Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Patrick Harmon

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Does not appear to be any significant coverage of this. Further, his name was Patrick Harmon not Harman. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of article meets WP:GNG: it has been covered in full-length pieces at The Guardian, Newsweek, The Salt Lake Tribune, KUTV, the Daily Mirror, and Deseret News (all cited in the article), and perhaps elsewhere. Article is a stub, so WP:DONOTDEMOLISH applies. The misspelling of Harmon's name has already been corrected. As for the allegation of WP:NOTNEWS, none of that policy's four criteria disqualify the article:

Original reporting. Does not apply, because the article is not written as a primary source. Rather, the article cites other sources for each claim made, per WP:VERIFIABILITY.
News reports. Does not apply, because article is not about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Nor is the article "written in news style".
Who's who. Article is exactly in keeping with the stipulation here that "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event".
A diary. Clearly not applicable to the article.

Ergo, keep. Please WP:PING me if you reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: What makes this more notable than any other police shooting? I am not seeing anything. It is only notable in the context of police shootings- nothing makes this different. Nothing calls him by name, it's just "cop shoots fleeing black", "shots fired in downtown slc" , protestors demand to see footage, footage shows..kills black man. None of that is anything more than routine news coverage. Unless you support creating an article for every person ever killed by the police, which might be a substantial task. And it was only fixed because I pointed it out, so don't say 'already.' ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. @El cid, el campeador: "What makes this more notable than any other police shooting?" Sorry, but this question doesn't make sense to me. I don't think anyone is claiming that this is the most notable police shooting the world has ever seen, just that it meets WP:GNG and doesn't breach WP:NOTNEWS. About, "it's just 'cop shoots fleeing black'". Ugh, how can you say "just" in a sentence like that? This makes me really sad :( Finally, about the spelling, I was only pointing out that it was already fixed by the time I replied here on the AfD thread. Geez. zazpot (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - seems to have substantial coverage and reliable sources. Would recommend re-evaluating (in a year?) if coverage completely falls off, but there’s enough to justify keeping it for now. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was asked to look at this, so I won't vote, but I should ask whether a reasonable merge target is available. If not, how do you propose Wikipedia maintain a proper description of this social issue? Wnt (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, if I knew of a reasonable merge target, I would not oppose merging, but I don't know of one at the moment. I propose Wikipedia simply applies WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS as normal. After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTFINISHED. Zazpot (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received substantial international coverage such as in the U.K with The Guardian, Mirror, and all other UK national newspapers as well as BBC, Channel 4 and others. If it was just another shooting it would not have received substantial coverage outside of the U.S. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS as that policy is for trivial events which this is not Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to have enough WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to pass the WP:GNG -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notability has been established by news coverage. Maurreen (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has received on-going coverage including in international media; a clearly controversial police shooting, which likely meets WP:LASTING. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Coverage is continuing and diverse, with multiple international sources. Meets GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzeldin Tahoun

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

Fails WP:GNG. In addition, it seems that all references in the article are self-published. Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does this article subject not pass the WP:GNG, but the references have been deceptively formatted to make it appear as though they come from prestigious universities and not this chap's blog. A Train^talk 23:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a McMaster University student with a single co-authored paper (arXiv:1708.06308 at a satellite workshop of ACM SenSys chaired by one of his co-authors). This is far from WP:PROF, and as well as the falsified references I can find no evidence of the "multiple awards" at Yale, Princeton, Northwestern, and at IEEE and ACM conferences, claimed by the article. There's a plausible case here for WP:CSD#G3 as a hoax, but maybe it's not blatant enough for speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Too Soon. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 04:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I usually participate in discussion which is related to engineers.I've checked out the article and references.the sources provide all of the content of article approximately. Also I checked his name on search engines, his activities such as his multiple awards and his education and alma mater prove his notability for Wikipedia.also I found in a reference that he is inventor so I think subject is notable enough as a engineer with multiple awards and his inventions then meetWikipedia:Notability (people). this engineer is successful by foreseeing his little age.Mehdikhan20 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Mehdikhan20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep with conditions the article need to be more sensible to notable for WP. its need to be revise again specially in Ref. article content could be diminish because it too excessive and have abundant informations that not need to be here. in spite of opinions it sounds he is a good programmer who has some achievements in machine vision and machine learning and dedicating his work to excellence that could proved by probing in internet but reviewers and author must promote it. with making this issues right and in lack of some famous names it could be a good article for Wikipedia because folks like him is the future of World Village. I can declare that seems the author of article opt wrong jagged way and( not a appropriate way) to introduce the profession of his work & activities and that why it became more baffled and we can't accuse him for some slip up mistake. I conclude debate with this argument " it had to be more accurate and revised and could be remained in WP " Dave linc (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Dave linc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep i think its could be better if article ceasing up from vital blunder.such as prohibit from unknow references and etc. But generally he had some news on www so i proposed to keep . Kurt logann (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Kurt logann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and edit hi guys... Ive edited article and checked the sources.The News on Google gives sources that can be used to expand the article.I think This person meets WP:NBIO.but we should let to other users to contribute on editing article to improve it...regardsAmirdaeii (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Amirdaeii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
speedy deletionthe user who created the article has tricked others by adding fake references.i analyzed sources and the websites.all of them are not reliable.im agree with professor Eppstein.regardsAmirdaeii (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked the refrences it seems like they are indeed coming from the official hackathon devpost pages, given the amount of activity on them, which is almost impossible to fake. I did some research indeed there was a hackathon in Yal, Northwestern, and Princeton and they match the dates on the devpost as they match the websites for the hackathons on the wayback machine for 2015. The kid has alot done given his age I believe so that I guess is goo enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people) given that his linkedin seems legit and googling his name throws lots of news about his winnings in some programming competitions and his startup ezSec indeed seems legit as it was refrenced on the innovation facotory website, which is related to McMaster Innovation Park, the same startup ezsec seems to be listed on the forge, the mcmaster university accelerator, linked to Ontario Centre of Excellence. The guy seems like he is a little smart man and indeed his refrences are solid and can't catch any talk but no walks on his page. Would be cool if we remove the IEEE refrence, he made, tho as so far only the IEEE student brach has mentioned hime and that is not a conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.109.216 (talk • contribs) — 130.113.109.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~@David Eppstein hello professor. this article should delete as soon as possible.regards~~Amirdaeii (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Amirdaeii, Kurt logann, Dave linc, and Mehdikhan20 have all been blocked as socks of Amirshahat (talk · contribs). !Votes stricken. GAB^gab 15:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Again

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

Unnotable band. Sources are facebook, youtube, wikipedia and a bare mention in an article from the alternative press, which is to say an article about someone creating a non-notable record player which then signed this band. Everything in the article is trivial, including being featured in the unsigned bands section of alternative press, and the fact that they would cover a blink-182 song in concert. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Part of the problem with finding sources is that the band name is a common term and articles—such as, "Everything New Is Old Again", from the Huffington Post—are returned along with the primary sources associated with the band. When I searched I couldn't find any RSes. AllMusic has a DB entry: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/old-again-mn0003312494 and nothing at Billboard. No claim to notability in article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and the sources are a problem; a PR piece for a local band. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion of possible page moves should be done through a separate move request. bd2412 T 04:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Refugees (female folk trio)

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

Fails WP:BAND, each artist has their own page which does mention this group but there is not enough material to have its own page and is best left to the own individual articles. NZFC^(talk) 01:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Lefsetz Letter] which suggests notability, and have posted something on the talk page encouraging the creator to see what else could be found. (as the source above says, they are a pretty 'off-grid' sort of band.) RobinLeicester (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete "Weak" because I wanted to weigh in with a keep. This is a trio of three accomplished singer/songwriters, and I thought they'd easily meet GNG. But all I could find was this, from NPR. JSFarman (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep, sort of~~ Dabify. I get that this band isn't notable by itself, but given that we have other articles that mention it, it seems kind of dumb to not have this as a navigation aid. If there were only one article that mentioned this band, it would be a no-brainer to turn this into a redirect. Given that, it seems silly to delete it just because there's multiple mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS (and only marginally related to this AfD): If we do end up keeping this, I'd move The Refugees to The Refugees (novel), and make The Refugees a WP:DAB page which points to The Refugees (novel), The Refugees (TV series), and The Refugees (female folk trio). And, of course, the reverse-pointing hatnotes on all of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my keep !vote. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced the right fix is to do this as a dab page, pointing directly to the individual members. I've done a sample at User:RoySmith/The Refugees -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep For the same logic as RoySmith - also noting all the three members have their own pages. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added references, including the NPR piece identified above, to the article. I think there is enough material to meet WP:BAND. gongshow talk 19:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also recommend changing the title of the article to The Refugees (band), as one of the members is a man. gongshow talk 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:NBAND criterion 6. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshadi Himasha Chavindi

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

Fails WP:GNG, references provided do not work or are selfpublished and do not meet WP:RS --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 00:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in the article are non-RS and all that turns up in searches are more of the sort: e.g., social media, IMDB, passing mentions of what dress she wore to a premier, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Upcoming made her debut in Wassanaye Sanda in 2016 not notable at this point a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep because is sufficient coverage in WP:RS to establish notability of this subject. (non-admin closure) Kagundu Talk To Me 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIITJEE

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails WP:COMPANY. The Google news link actually gives only routine coverage. G11 was overturned in June. Previously kept in 2009, but that was due to reasons that need to be re-examined. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - although some of the sources referenced are indeed just passing references, a look at the last two sources (nos 5 and 6) seem to be more than just passing references. Seeing as a previous AFD in 2009 resulted in a keep vote, I'd be very surprised if things have changed enough to warrant the deletion of the article. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 07:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable company Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen many of these institutions when I visited India. Dial911 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep FIITJEE is one of the most well known coaching institutes for Engineering entrance exams in India. It is not one single institute but rather a chain of institutes. Their branches are present in every single Indian city and is a household name among most Indian families.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to my vote, FIITJEE has been in news multiple times. [35], [36], [37], [38] are some of the most recent ones.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chips Ahoy! (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheese Nips}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvita}}