Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ImmaImmaTaco (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 17 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 16 June 18 June >

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 close. Nominator is a blocked editor. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Almagro Basch

Martín Almagro Basch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been tagged as an orphan for over five years, and only covers one source. That aside, I don't see enough historical significance for the person to sustain an article. ImmaImmaTaco (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. @ImmaImmaTaco: please read WP:BEFORE if you haven't already. We don't delete articles because they are orphans, or because they cite only a few sources (many excellent articles do). I presume that what you mean by "I don't see enough historical significance for the person to sustain an article" is that the subject is not notable. On the contrary, he appears to notable both as a figure in the Spanish Civil War [1][2] and as an archaeologist [3][4][5][6]. es:Martín Almagro Basch looks well developed and good be a basis for expansion of our article. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. Blocked editors may neither initiate nor participate in deletion discussions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald and Sheila Broflovski

Gerald and Sheila Broflovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG; the page hardly covers any secondary sources and mostly cites information using links to the articles for the episodes mentioned. ImmaImmaTaco (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SoWhy 18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murali Vijayakumar

Murali Vijayakumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mr. Tamil Nadu is not a reputed enough award to merit an article, especially when its awarded to a lot of people in different weight categories (assuming the person has indeed won the award). Searching provides for no reliable sources to indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE (if applicable), and the only reference provided is a dead link from a non reliable source. Created and edited by 2 single purpose accounts, one of which has the person's name indicating possible WP:COI. Jupitus Smart 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as G5 creation by editor evading a block..
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TV Pinsk Music top 10

~~Not delete TV_Pinsk_Music_top_10, A fragment of the musical transmission here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr2ceAVfvKc User:Wikibandd ~~

TV Pinsk Music top 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that the month old program is notable. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 11:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  12:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not delete TV_Pinsk_Music_top_10, A fragment of the musical transmission here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr2ceAVfvKc User:Wikibandd ~~*But the article creator is User:JaahahaJio, who I don't see listed at that SPI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great. I had placed a G5 speedy deletion tag on it accordingly but I see there were substantive edits by 178.120.40.217, Belarusian IP. Not sure of we know that's him or not. Anyway delete per nom, at the very least. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not delete TV_Pinsk_Music_top_10, A fragment of the musical transmission here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr2ceAVfvKc User:Wikibandd ~~

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Healey (autism activist)

AfDs for this article:
Kevin Healey (autism activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regular notable does not make him 100% notable, notability is solely restricted to local notability. National coverages only apply as a alleged social media victim which does not make him inheritantly notable overall. Master Cool (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite a pretty good attempt to promote, the subject is not notable. Super Tomas (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Master Cool and Super Tomas are  Confirmed socks of Donnie Park, the nominator in the first AfD. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donnie Park.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely clear of the point here. It suggests that this page is a self promotion piece. The article reads in a fairly neutral fashion with a good range of independent sources. If you read the edit history there is no evidence of repeated attempts to edit this into a promotion piece.Pstansbu (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's one of those people who is trying to get noticed, when notable people don't have to try. But he's had enough coverage that I think Wikipedia should have an article about him. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kevin is not a well known Advocate outside of his local community. Most of his work has been self published, and with his resignation from his role at the National Autistic Society, he has no national position or position of responsibility. In my view he is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanhendry94 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe his holding a "national position or position of responsibility" has anything to do with notability in it's own right and, therefore, the fact he no longer holds this position does not diminish his notability as seems to be suggested here. Pstansbu (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it feels like there is enough coverage of his life to warrant keeping. Even where he has originally been involved in production of book and film this has been covered on sites such as Express and ITV which suggests reasonable notability. Whilst not major articles these seem long enough to be considered non-trivial. These add to the range of coverage that was discussed when the article was previously nominated for deletion. His receipt of a British Citizens award seems worthy of mention, whilst these awards aren't massively well known and wouldn't warrant notability if the only factor, they add to an overall picture that this page should be kept. Pstansbu (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think sufficient sourcing exists and moreover I'm not a fan of allowing sockpuppets to get their way. Pinging @Bbb23: to ask him to investigate the suspicious involvement of Ryanhendry94 in this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition I've just noticed Ryanhendry94 has posed a question on the talk page regarding allegations about bullying carried out by Kevin Healey and added links to some of the allegations made - I have just responded to that query. This might have been written entirely in good faith but could also indicate a lack of neutrality on the subject Pstansbu (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - After an AfD in 2015, result was Keep. Notability is not temporary, nor have community standards changed since then. Stop wasting our time. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 09:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Saiz

Henry Saiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Super Tomas (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: hmmm, Saiz is a pretty well known DJ on the dance scene, playing international shows and he has remixed tracks by other notable artists. But I'm aware that none of this is enough to justify an article about him by itself. I'd be surprised if there weren't some articles/interviews with him in dance magazines like Mixmag, but as they aren't available online, I can't make a case for keeping this article at present. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 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. SoWhy 07:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open strategy

Open strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Comatmebro (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 10 June 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, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Return to draft. while it might be possible to write an encyclopedic article about "open strategy", this article is not that one. An article might start with an historical approach, when was the concept developed, by whom, for what reasons; then go to an analysis of the concept's components, who is considered an "outsider" and who are stake-holders, what are the pros and cons of adopting an open strategy; then deal with aspects of actual use, what industries or environs typically use open strategies, etc. Simply throwing a bunch of citations together with a definition is not a good start. Learn the subject, outline an article, then write the article using appropriate reliable sources that actually discuss the concept, not just implement it, to support individual points. --Bejnar (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an encycopedia article. No point returning it to draft--it would need to be started again. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 1 July 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  07:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonner Strassenbahn ROSWINDIS

Bonner Strassenbahn ROSWINDIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable individual locomotive. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cöln-Frechener Strassenbahn BENZELRATH pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this being discussed here: https://www.drehscheibe-online.de/foren/read.php?17,4264616 I'm not into locomotives, so I cannot comment much on notability, but apparently there are some folks out there who do find it historically notable enough to still discuss the topic. Given that interests are diverse and Wikipedia is for anyone, not just Joe Average, and because I find it important to preserve reliable information about historical topics (there's a lot that can be learnt from them also for present and future topics), and because there is clearly no commercial interest in such topics, I tend to suggest to keep rather than delete such topics. Actually, this also applies to the already deleted Cöln-Frechener Strassenbahn BENZELRATH topic for which Google turns up quite a few hits. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA South America Under-17 Championship

FIBA South America Under-17 Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. the world under 17s may be notable but a regional competition not so. secondly all the article contains is a list of results. also nominating

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument as per WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, he'll just repeat exactly what was said above, wasting everybody's time. Are you happy now? Smartyllama (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Commemoration of Casimir Pulaski#Holidays. makes sense to merge to Commemoration of Casimir Pulaski #Holidays; in my opinon merge of the other articles mention can be done as an editing decision. DGG ( talk ) 13:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Days

Pulaski Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only coverage that I could find is local routine coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Packer (software)

AfDs for this article:
Packer (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources except self-references and some niche mentions in passing/marketing material. Last AfD ended in no consensus due to nobody bothering to comment. Ping last AfD creator User:WikiPuppies]. Let's delete this spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This software has been mentioned in numerous articles and several books, so it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources for it. Jarble (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So find it. Linking to Google page and saying that this phrase exists on Google is hardly an argument for anything. WP:BUTITEXISTS is probably the most lame argument you can find at AfD, and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not much better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:51, 9 June 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 09:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to EternalBlue. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EternalRocks worm

EternalRocks worm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge into EternalBlue or similar. Virus was incorrectly connected to WannaCry and is not specifically notable. Did not cause any significant damage, nor did it receive coverage OTHER than it using similar vulnerabilties to WannaCry. ZarosFlok (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • One of those sources is calling it a "WannaCry successor", the other mentions it in the context of WannaCry, either way proving my point that it's not individually notable.

--ZarosFlok (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. - WP:GNG. also see [12], [13]. also, i feel that an independent page is supported per WP:PAGEDECIDE -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the sources you've posted and that I'm able to find through Google are all tech/security blogs, and they all link to the same sources, a single GitHub and a few cryptic twitter posts. This is radically different from WannaCry, which had loads of mainstream news coverage and well-documented accounts of the effects of the malware on companies and individuals. I'm aware an article can exist for something much smaller than WannaCry, but this is just the industry's blogs (of which there are literally hundreds, some duplicated) trying to squeeze a few more days of coverage out of the "malware scare". --ZarosFlok (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into EternalBlue. Concurring with ZarosFlok on this one. Barely covered → barely encyclopedic. Frevangelion (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Applied Rationality

Center for Applied Rationality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The organization is barely notable; more importantly, it seems to have been the focus of a lot of promotional editing coming from people affiliated with CFAR or with organizations themselves affiliated with CFAR.

I recently removed a great deal of content that was unsourced, editorialized, misleadingly interpreted, and so on and so forth. But I'm thinking that the whole thing should just be nuked. See, for example, the edits from User:Kbog, who seems to also be an (Redacted) with a persistent history of promotionally editing Effective Altruism-related pages and engaging in vicious edit wars to keep their content in place despite principled objections from many editors.

I believe the promotional editing here to be related to this recent incident where a huge ring of promotional editors-for-pay were banned after adding large amounts of poorly-sourced, superfluous content to pages. The comment

The more I look at the editing of Riceissa the more a very clear pattern of advocacy (promotional edits using bad sources or no sources, and edit warring etc to maintain them) appears.

is a succinct description of what seems to be happening more generally and the problem should be dealt with similarly and swiftly.

Fqn9010e0754032 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria for deleting this kind of article is WP:GNG, not whoever has been editing it or whether you think it is promotional (which it isn't) or negative (which it has been in the past). On Fqn9010e0754032's smear attempt - I'd encourage you to look into the actual history of edit disputes to see what was going on rather than uncritically using them as argument fodder -- Jytdog and I were both trying to reduce and rewrite the same article at approximately the same time, not arguing about what kind of content should be included in the final version or not. The insinuation that I have something to do with Vipul is wrong, I never had anything to do with him. Finally, Fqn9010e0754032 is a single purpose account which was created yesterday, and I've noticed that throwaway accounts attacking LessWrong/CFAR/etc have been on the rise over the last month or two on several websites, so we could both play this game if we wanted to. K.Bog 20:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing my editing as a "smear attempt" without a single example of a concretely bad change I made to the page demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith. Given your extensive history of attempting to delay and sidetrack deletion attempts by engaging participants in tangential conversations and drawing in unnecessary bureaucracy, your clearly extensive ties to the Effective Altruism movement and the "rationalist community", your very suspicious defense of Vipul Naik's paid editing ring, and your bad-faith response to this AfD which accuses me of orchestrating a "smear attempt" without a single concrete illustration of how anything I've done constitutes one (which ironically makes your own response itself a "smear attempt"), well, I don't really think there's much more that needs to be said in response. Fqn9010e0754032 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You completely misunderstood me. The smear attempt was made upon my account, not the CFAR article. On that note, you should find a single example where I defended Vipul Naik's paid editing ring or started "tangential conversations" to "sidetrack deletion attempts", because I didn't - please don't lie. And if you open an AFD by making accusations of bad faith, you sure can't complain when other people continue that discussion! K.Bog 20:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When you appear to be a COI editor, accusing another editor of lying is not the best move to get people onside with your argument - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My 'argument' here, aside from noting the correct criteria for article notability, is simply to call out Fqn9010e0754032 on their behavior and rhetoric. How a user is talking about my "extensive history" on Wikipedia a day after signing up is beyond me. My edit history (which goes back years) covers a wide range of topics and my writing has never been flagged as promotional, so the claims they are making are false and you don't have any reason to accuse me of COI (which I do not have). I ask them not to lie, but whether they are being intentionally or unintentionally wrong is something which I make no claims about. K.Bog 01:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After taking a moment to review the article and rationale, this looks like a pretty clear case. WSJ, Vice, and NYT have covered it in depth, in addition to other sources, so it comfortably passes WP:GNG. The only other reason you gave for deleting the article was that you're afraid that I'll engage in "vicious edit wars" on the content of the article. But I didn't dispute any of the edits you made, and actually I think they were pretty reasonable. They displayed good familiarity with the principles of Wikipedia content and formatting. The article has a little room for improvement -- e.g. the NYT excerpt is not perfectly representative of the source, and we can restore one of the citations -- but overall I'm not complaining. So I don't see what the problem is. K.Bog 06:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for the org's $3,900 4-day seminars. Yes, there's some coverage but mostly as a fad. This is a mere curiosity at this point, and I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH being met. In the current form, the article is promotional and not a value to the project. The notability is marginal so it's best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parikrama Group of Institutions

Parikrama Group of Institutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant indication of importance. Unsourced, written like an advertisement, especially the sections about their mission and vision, seems to be copied directly from the institution's website. Hayman30 (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 1 (2013–15). Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Woman

AfDs for this article:
Giant Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few reliable sources available, and the article is sourced mainly with sources with only passing mentions, and blogs on Tumblr. Fails the GNG. — Quasar G. 12:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Richard Clifton-Dey. Feel free to take from article history, but nothing is sourced to merge. czar 00:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behemoth's World

Behemoth's World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a painting by Richard Clifton-Dey whose article claims that His most famous work of art may be Behemoth's World without citing any sources. The article itself failed verification. One reference is to a website that only says "An article on the artist can be found at Wikipedia." The other makes no mention of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Richard Clifton-Dey. There's a little discussion of this work but generally in the context of the album. Clifton-Dey's article is currently weak, but he got some media coverage in pre-internet days, as much for his children's books as his fantasy art; there's also coverage in science fiction websites but I'm not going to judge which is a reliable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 1 (2013–15). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose's Scabbard

Rose's Scabbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has little coverage in reliable secondary sources (although quite a bit in tabloid-ish blog-ish magazines). Seems to fail WP:GNG. — Quasar G. 12:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes#Season 2 (2015–16). Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sworn to the Sword

Sworn to the Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little independent coverage in reliable sources. There is quite a bit in tabloid-ish blog-ish magazines like The Mary Sue, but this does not demonstrate notability. The subject seems to fail WP:GNG. — Quasar G. 12:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the standard for Notability, and almost no coverage in respected sources. Suggest merging or redirecting to Steven Universe 173.239.207.50 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Marandi

Javad Marandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Shekhterman

Igor Shekhterman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by the author of the article. The reasoning was the following: A plain CV (resumé) with no particular indication of significance or importance. A vanity piece and Possible COI (all the hallmarks of a commissioned work per NPP). A plethora of sources does not automatically confer notability. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan DuCharme

Stephan DuCharme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by the author of the article. The reasoning was the following: A plain CV (resumé) with no particular indication of significance or importance. A vanity piece and Possible COI (all the hallmarks of a commissioned work per NPP). A plethora of sources does not automatically confer notability. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exactly, looks like CV ......Sulaimandaud (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The main resemblance to a CV is the style of not writing in complete sentences, which is not enough to disqualify an article. It's a direct translation of a ruWP article, and follows the style of that article--I can read the Russian article and sources, but I do not have the cultural awareness to judge the style of writing. The source of notability would come from having been the CEO of X5 Retail Group, which is certainly notable, as a London Stock Exchange listed company. The sources look like other references for business execs. The Forbes.ru is less substantial than it looks, the kommersant.ru is an "interview" just like the ones familiar to us in English where the interview is just a framework for the individual to say whatever he cares to. But my inclination is to give the benefit of the doubt to the ceo of a major company. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This man is the head of the largest food retailer in Russia - X5 Retail Group. There are a lot of information about them and their work in key Russian media - Vedomosti, Kommersant, TASS, RIA Novosti and others. Now I am completing the corrections to article X5 Retail Group in English. The information in this article is very outdated. It takes a little time. Tell me how to improve the article by showing the importance, but not by going into the advertising format, please. Mikhailalexandr (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 08:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association

National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable under WP:GNG. References included don't seem to relate to this article's subject. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any non trivial reliable sources on the subject. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 17:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:41, 2 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Vihar, Guntur

Rail Vihar, Guntur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article may not meet Wikipedian standards as per WP:Notability, It may meet WP:Geoland but is too small locality to have a seperate article— IM3847 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:GEOLAND is the relevant part of the relevant notability guideline, and notability is not a function of size. That said, the place is verifiably there, but English-language reliable sources are thin ([14] [15]). I'm not finding much to verify the status of this railway colony. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotional piece on a housing development in Guntur. This is not a village. Under the WP:GEOLAND guideline neighbourhoods need to meet a higher standard that individual villages and towns. Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. Normally, they are briefly discussed , if at all, in the city article, which here would be Guntur. The text land, as existed before 26 April 2008 can be seen in the photograph suggests that this was copied from another work, possibly a brochure for the development, so WP:COPYVIO might apply. --Bejnar (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the sourcing is inadequate to overcome NFF at this time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendra Sarkar

Dipendra Sarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFILM. Non-noteable unreleased film without any significant coverage of the production of the film. Comatmebro (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The brief My Republica notice offered above covers the announcement of film plans at end-May and says that neither a director nor some of the lead actors have been arranged. As specified in the first sentence of WP:NFF, such circumstances indicate that this is too soon for an article. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per user AllyD; and as per WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NFF.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the article was expanded after the nomination for deletion, which included the addition of sources. North America1000 06:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bartholomew Basanta Miranda

Bartholomew Basanta Miranda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited bio stub with no real indication of notability Killer Moff (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and flag for translation. Article is definitely in dire need of improvement — as written, it currently just states that he was a politician and doesn't even say or reference what office he ever held to earn him that title — but the article on gl: is a bit more substantial and verifies that he did hold an WP:NPOL-passing office. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaki Date

Dhaki Date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article may not meet Wikipedian standards as per WP:Notability IM3847 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There's no substantive Wikipedia-worthy content here, and judging from what's there, there's not going to be. It reads like an Urban Dictionary entry. V2Blast (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No matter how tasty they are, they arent a botanical variety. Not different from other dates. I dont want to see articles about dates named after every region. Also, per V2Blast. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 12:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Elkins

Henry Elkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. I don't see any WP:Reliable sources that establishes this persons notability. Mitchumch (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was a close associate of Martin Luther King, Jr mentioned specifically in MLK's autobiography. He was also an important leader in a large historically black college. Given the civil rights struggle predates the internet, sources are harder to find but undoubtedly exist in other books. I fully expect his controversial activities would have been reported in 1960's newspapers. His later work is also somewhat notable, with many of his works findable in a search. That is why I promoted the page. Dr Elkins is far more notable than the pageant queens and youtubers that get pages here. He actually changed history. Legacypac (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being a close associate of MLK does not make one notable. There does not appear to be any content about his important leadership at a HBCU. Numerous Wikipedia articles rely upon sources that cannot be examined on the internet. If you are aware of sources, then please cite them so they can be examined. As the article stands now, it should be restored to the draft page space until you have added those sources. Considering it had been in draft space from 25 May 2015‎ until 9 June 2017, the article should have been deleted over a year ago. Mitchumch (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references in the article devote significant coverage to Elkins, and my search online found no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I found passing mentions of Elkins as an aide or assistant to MLK but this is not enough to establish notability. I own two lengthy biographies of MLK, Let the Trumpet Sound and Parting the Waters and neither mentions Elkins. I also own a 702 page volume of his essential writings called A Testament of Hope and King doesn't mention Elkins once. The ability to find someone's published work online does not make a person notable. If it did, then every single blogger, published writer and reporter would be notable, but 99% aren't. We cannot keep an article based on speculation that better sources exist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST applies here. I'm not a subject matter expert, I found this while reviewing AfC submissions. I spent some time improving the sourcing and verifying what I could on the internet. Everything checked out as far as I could find, so I doubt the contributor made up anything in the article. We are dealing with a - perhaps minor nut notable - civil rights leader and looking for sources from the 1960's.
Further to Mitchumch comment about a HBCU: North Carolina Central University is a HBCU. ref 7 "Microsoft Word - Christian.Ministry.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2017-06-10. says "In 1962, several judicatories decided to establish the United Christian Campus Ministries at universities and colleges throughout the State of North Carolina. They include the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, United Methodist Church, Episcopal Diocese of Raleigh, Presbyterian Church – USA, Diocese of Raleigh – Roman Catholic, United Church of Christ, and The Lutheran Council. From 1965-1966, Reverend Hank Elkins became director of the United Christian Campus Ministry. Judicatories, local businesses, and churches, across denominational lines, lent support through finances, buses, vans, and representatives to serve on the Campus Ministry Board. The University provided work study funds. However, during Reverend Elkins’ tenure, the State of North Carolina, through the Governor’s Office, began to question the use of state funding for a religious organization. Later, the Institution had to pay back the work-study funding." Also it refers to his immediate predecesor as "the first campus minister" at little further down it talks about tensions over civil rights protests and the role of Campus Ministry leadesrship in that, tensions which appear to have started under Elkin.
I've added refs to Jet Magazine, a mention in a Los Angeles paper from 1962, and another book referencing his role in the Carver Park incident.

Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple brief mentions located on Newspapers.com, that he was an "Atlanta aide to King" and a "College Chaplin" at NC College, the latter mentioned in The Daily Tar Heel in 1963. Still no substantial sources counting towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another brief mention in The Daily Dar Heel that Rev. Elkins was arrested at a sit-in protesting segregated lunch counters in Dec. 1963. One does suspect that the sources are oout there somewhere, but I'm not finding them myself. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST has been mentioned as a reason to keep the article. That section concludes "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." I searched three major printed sources as well as online and found nothing significant. I will gladly switch to "Keep" if significant coverage is brought forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Main issue is lack of in-depth sources. I think the footnote in The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., Volume VII is sufficiently in-depth. I've added another mention from the Greensboro Record using genealogy bank (which does not have clippings), but which is an in-passing announcement of a talk he was giving about sit-ins and mentions his position. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated this article because he is not notable. I am not disputing his participation in the movement. I am disputing his notability. Not every person that participated in the civil rights movement is notable. Elkins is among that group of non-notable participants. Not a single citation supports this person being notable. I actively work on Civil Rights Movement related articles and routinely scan draft pages for potential articles. I have never come across a journal article, monograph, thesis, dissertation, or a published conference paper about this person. Mitchumch (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Smmurphy(Talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I searched a different way (look for Hank Elkins) and found 3 pages in a 2016 book "From Reconciliation to Revolution: The Student Interracial Ministry, Liberal Christianity, and the Civil Rights Movement" focused on Elkins, his part in a student movement toward desigrigation that lead to his posting working for King and his involvement in the Albany Movement. He lived with the Kings, assisting, driving for and supporting King in a time where a white person would be denied housing for associating with blacks. This is in depth coverage in a serious book. see pages 39-41 in particular [1] I don't own the book, he could be covered further, but that is a serious discussion of Elkins in an important context with 5 inline sources specific to him, and at least the first chapter devoted to the group of student activists he was part of. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point of that book is to discuss the Student Interracial Ministry which will need to be created. Every member of that org that participated in the CRM can be included in that article.
Here's an example to clarify this problem. I have listed nearly every participant of the Freedom Rides in the Notes section. Are you saying that each participant should have an article? There were hundreds of volunteers during Freedom Summer and hundreds of elementary students during the Birmingham campaign. As individuals the majority of participants are not notable enough, but as a group they are notable. The Elkins article should be a redirect to Student Interracial Ministry. That way other members in the book can also be presented and Elkins can have a presence on Wikipedia thru that article. Mitchumch (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While until the page can be merged to Student Interracial Ministry this page should be kept per WP:PRESERVE. No point destroying the work just because there is a better way to present it. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While researching is difficult, and finding sources online for this time period is difficult, with the extra sourcing which has been added, I think this person overcomes the "inherited notability" for his relationship to King, and now meets WP:GNG on his own. Onel5969 TT me 21:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ""inherited notability" for his relationship to King" is a violation of WP:INVALIDBIO which states, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the pages Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are merely redirects to those articles." Mitchumch (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=dIgwDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=North+Carolina+College+Hank+Elkins&source=bl&ots=0KkkidrHLZ&sig=z3GNsDBhGnsidEEeYQH74XmOUbA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimvoC-m7nUAhVY-2MKHXMdB30Q6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=North%20Carolina%20College%20Hank%20Elkins&f=false
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article was expanded after the nomination for deletion, and additional sources were added to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article has substantial coverage and is well-referened. Vorbee (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only claim to notability is his connection to MLK. Since notability is not inherited, I would delete as non-notable. Coverage is a threshold question for notability, but alone does grant it. Clearly he is verifiable. Whether or not there is significant coverage here has not been specifically addressed, just asserted. See "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article WP:Notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite my inclination to keep a referenced, cogent article on such a man, subject does not reach notability. --Lockley (talk) 05:58, 1 July 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. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT culture in Vancouver

LGBT culture in Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While not a horrible idea in theory, to be a genuinely useful article this would need to contain some real substance and reliable sourcing about this as a topic -- look, for instance, at LGBT culture in Liverpool and LGBT culture in New York City for two much better examples of this kind of thing. As constituted, however, all that's actually here is a simple barebones list of the same individual things that are already filed in Category:LGBT culture in Vancouver and/or contextualized in Davie Village anyway. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody's prepared to put in the sourcing and the substance to make this a worthwhile article, but as written this just isn't actually accomplishing anything we aren't already doing better in other places. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The solution isn't for this to just stand as is for years and years, either — if you feel strongly enough that this should exist but need time to get it up to a keepable standard, then that can always be done in draftspace or user sandboxspace. Creating articles in mainspace that don't even meet a minimal standard of usefulness at the outset isn't desirable, however. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fair to assume this page would remain exactly as is for years to come. This seems like an easy keep to me, but I'll step away from this discussion now and let others decide. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, there is a secondary source used, though I had failed to add the "Reflist" template so the source was hiding at the bottom of the article. I've corrected this error. There are also a couple helpful external links, and some simply Googling would show there are plenty of additional sources that could be used to expand this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's a certain amount of original research and synthesis in all of this. But it's sourced and factual. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - commonsense that in a metro region of 2 million+ there is a large gay culture worthy of discusion on Wikipedia. Sourcing shouldn't even be a point of challenge, but the index of Queer Mobilizations: Social Movement Activism and Canadian Public Policy, published by University of British Columbia Press [16], has plenty of material showing that this "is a thing". Not to mention the entire contents of Category:LGBT culture in Vancouver: essentially what the "delete" voters are saying is that each of these entries is an independent topic and there is no coherence to the category, which is plainly false. Perhaps there is some bias (unconscious, AGF) being reflected in comments like this isn't "a worthwhile article", "no evidence of any special culture" and so on? Sending this to AfD the same day it's been created and criticizing it for not being built out (yet) seems vexatious from where I'm sitting. - Bri (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the category makes a lot more sense for this than an article. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a walk down Davie Street in Vancouver is all you need to see that this is a notable topic. Fix the page don't delete it. Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sihi.  Sandstein  09:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sihi( सीहि)

Sihi( सीहि) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent evidence of notability. Hayman30 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle Friday (album)

Freestyle Friday (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Jennica✿ / talk 07:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus is keep, keep voters also present better arguments. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daddyofive

Daddyofive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems promotional using phrases such as "has seen great success", and their only notability is due to the outrage over their videos and ensuing losing custody of their children. I am not exactly seeing the notability here. Andise1 (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep – The first issue can easily be rectified without deleting the entire page. The second might warrant the page being renamed to focus on the controversy (and rewritten accordingly), since you yourself have acknowledged that the controversy itself is notable (there are several newspaper articles cited in the article itself). V2Blast (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another YouTuber who got their fame through stupid means. Channel doesn't exist now, their fame is gone and though the controversy is definitely notable the subject is not on their own. Also have concerns due to the child subject involved in said 'pranks'. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The subject is now equated with the controversy, the name "DaddyOFive" even clearly in the title of the references. So I see no need to rename except perhaps to fix to uppercase OF. Any other concerns can be addressed by editing. -- œ™ 23:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as much as I can't stand the bloke and what he's done, he is notable for his acts and there are many, many references scattered through the internet, and as such, he quite clearly meets GNGs. ↅ𝜞 (Contact me) (See my edits) 10:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  09:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Day Die Day

Pi Day Die Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little independent evidence of notability. Hayman30 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice to recreation. It is salvageable and a cursory search showed some glimmer of hope ("reliable" sources: [17], etc). As it stands however, it would be best to just get rid of this poorly written promo-piece. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Keep. Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much kudos for blowing up all the mess and turning it into a decent-ish stub @MichaelQSchmidt:, but we had better get to work on the body otherwise there's not much point in the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really did not take too long to show the TOPIC as pushing up on WP:NF even as a stub. Being improvable, it need not start out as perfect, and yes there's more to do. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: Once upon a time I could sit through hours of Steven Seagal's worst movies... Don't think I have the inclination or time to watch this one, so the Plot section would have to languish for a while. Otherwise I think I have contributed enuf to the page's cleanup and perhaps @Hayman30: could withdraw his nom. Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptional editing. You did very well under WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. And its kind of sad that folks act as if "current state" is the only thing to consider and that due diligence is often ignored. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice on renominating. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Spirit (South African TV series)

Free Spirit (South African TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A television series that ran for 7 seasons would seem likely to be notable. But after doing some WP:BEFORE work, I am finding very little coverage of this television series, little enough that I'm wondering if it is in fact notable under WP:TVSHOW. So I'm bringing it before the community to have more eyes take a look at it. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether this can be redirected/merged to List of South African television series
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer LeGuilloux

Jennifer LeGuilloux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE and GNG. Her results: http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00004209.htm Hergilei (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eka software

Eka software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent evidence of corporate notability. Says nothing about what others have written about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BB Ki vines

BB Ki vines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly incomprehensible article about non-notable blogger. Not every blogger is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is worth a closer look from someone familiar with the challenges of sourcing Indian content. 400,000,000+ views and 3.3 million subscribers strongly suggests that there's something going on here. Sources now included in the article support the existence of a large following and lasting impact. This article describes him as "India's fastest growing YouTube star" who is surrounded by fans when he goes to Starbucks, and it quotes Tanmay Bhat of All India Bakchod as saying he's "making a killing" because of the low cost of production on his videos. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I hadn't seen the !vote above, I would have speedied as a test page. Notable or not, there isn't even enough for a draft here, let alone an article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It did look like a test page. I've reverted it back so that it's at least readable. The article seems like it's been a recurring target of test-edits and other problems. BB Ki Vines is create-protected, and if this is kept (which is a big if), the article should probably be moved to Bhuvan Bham anyway. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hindustan Times says Bhuvan Bam is a household name in the country of 1.3 billion. [18] His youtube channel 'BB Ki Vines' was awarded most popular channel award at WebTV Asia Awards 2016,[19] so might be among the most popular onlines faces in Asia (if not the most popular). He is India's most subscribed youtuber,[20] and also the most fastest growing (mentioned above by User:Grayfell). Many articles/interviews of him are present online HT 1, HT 2, India Today and many more, enough to pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Evangel Classical Christian School. SoWhy 09:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evangel Christian School (Alabama)

Evangel Christian School (Alabama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Removed prod because the school does exist in Alabama and there are some sources for it. It is a hybrid home school/brick and mortar school We need to discuss its notability. Here is the correct website for the school. http://www.evangelhomeschool.org/. Rogermx (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  04:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  04:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the GNG. Home school groups aren't typical community institutions like you would find in your traditional schools, so I'm fine with a hard delete and no redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are some sources I found about the subject:
    1. Etheredge, Alec (2017-03-08). "Evangel hires first full-time athletic director". Shelby County Reporter. Retrieved 2017-06-18.

      The article notes:

      For the first time in its 13-year history, Evangel Christian School has hired a full time athletic director to run its athletic program and serve as its football and baseball coach. The Alabaster-based private school made up of homeschool students has hired Tim Smith, formerly athletic director and headmaster at Cornerstone Christian School in Shelby County.

      ...

      Evangel’s athletic program has been a perennial powerhouse in all sports, despite being run entirely with the leadership of volunteers. Since beginning in 2004, the school has won numerous conference, state and national championships in football, volleyball, boys and girls basketball and baseball. The school currently competes in the Alabama Christian Sports Conference and moved up from eight-man to 11-man football this past fall. The athletic program is made up of student-athletes from both Evangel Christian—the homeschool “school”—as well as Evangel Classical Christian School.

    2. Etheredge, Alec (2016-11-05). "Evangel wins 2016 ACSC State Championship". Shelby County Reporter. Retrieved 2017-06-18.

      The article notes:

      The Evangel Christian School football team got a strong performance from quarterback Micah Murphy who led his team to 459 yards of total offense, 235 through the air and close to another 235 on the ground, to propel his team to the 2016 ACSC state championship.

      Evangel would end up taking down Ezekiel by a final score of 68-30 to take home the title.

    3. "Evangel places second at BEST robotics championship". Shelby County Reporter. 2016-12-15. Retrieved 2017-06-18.

      The article notes:

      Evangel Christian School in Alabaster recently placed second at the south’s BEST robotics championship at Auburn University.

      Evangel team sponsor Stephen Daniels said this is the fifth year for Evangel students to participate in BEST (Boosting Engineering, Science and Technology).

    Cunard (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- It is described as K--12, does that mean it has a secondary department? If so, "all high schools are notable" would seem to apply. This was merely a pragmatic ruling, because pupils wanted to write about their own schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron, "all high schools are notable" is no longer the consensus I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not actually a school. Based on its website, it's a religious organization that supports home schooling primarily by organizing athletic competitions, and calls it "home schools covering". It offers no classes, though an allied organization (Evangel Classical Christian School) does. The current article is deceptive advertising. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think that's a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Cunard's rename proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G7: author has requested deletion or blanked the page. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chak Merly

Chak Merly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about part of a village with a total population of 2,050 that claims the subject derives its name from a policy enacted in the 1770 by a Prime Minster who did not take office until 200 years later. Part of effort to split the article about the village proper into two articles. All that could be in one single article, if there was any content in the forks, which there isn't. Mduvekot (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some Kind of Illness

Some Kind of Illness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With no coverage in reliable sources, this band fails WP:BAND. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Gabriel

Howard Gabriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography by blocked user. No substantial coverage in sources, only routine announcements. Mduvekot (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Green

AfDs for this article:
J.J. Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still WP:TOOSOON. While there has been a limited amount of additional activity and coverage since the previous deletion discussion for this article, there is still no indication that he meets WP:NACTOR. Extensive use of PR sources and inclusion of unsourced trivia, such as college fraternity membership, suggests possible WP:COI issues as well. Grayfell (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nazicruft.  Sandstein  09:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Knight's Cross recipients 4th SS Polizei Panzer Grenadier Division

List of Knight's Cross recipients 4th SS Polizei Panzer Grenadier Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unnecessary cross-categorisation created in 2008, at a time when the awarding of the Knight's Cross was accepted on Wiki as a presumption of notability. Since then, the community consensus has evolved and the awarding of the Knight's Cross no longer carries such a presumption; please see the close at Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. In addition, breaking down the recipients by such minute categories is excessive; the existing alphabetical lists are sufficient. Lists of similar scope have been recently deleted at AfD, such as:

Additionally, I'm nominating the following lists; the notability and excessiveness concerns apply equally to them as well:

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walks of Italy

AfDs for this article:
Walks of Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement for a tour company: the sources not in-depth, they're basically advice for travelers, and in one case practically BEGS the reader to view it as reliable ("...whose reputable list of contributions can be found at Danielle's website"), and the prose is pure brochure-speak. How this survived an AFD is beyond me. Calton | Talk 01:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kundan Sad

Kundan Sad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of non-notable cinematographer. See run-of-the-mill. Most of the references are IMDB, which is not a reliable source and besides lists everyone in the film industry. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  03:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Should definitely be deleted. It's blatantly promotional, poorly written, almost nonexistently cited, and the only edits (other than your AfD notice and a bot fixing a link) are by obvious accounts of the subject of the article: User:Sadkunda and User:Kundansad. The subject of the article could be notable, but as it is the article would need to be entirely rewritten anyway. V2Blast (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential nfl expansion

Potential nfl expansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic I'm pretty sure is probably notable, and I do read news once in a while about potential NFL expansion teams. However, I've also read that NFL expansion appears to be on hold, at least in the short-term. As for the article itself, the lead appears to be more about relocations than expansions, and the rest of the article is mostly speculation and original research. I'm sure a proper article could be written about the topic or be merged to our article on the NFL, but not in this state. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to NFL expansion, or something similar. This article is very badly written, but the solution is for someone knowledgeable to write a masterpiece. Note that Expansion_team#National_Football_League is much better written, although it is about the past and this is about the future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My understanding is roughly that of the nominator - that NFL expansion is on hold for now, and even that it's not desperately keen on more relocation following the last couple of years. That makes any discussion of a Portland team (which is largely what this article boils down to) more in the line of speculation than anything else. If and when the concepts of expansion or relocation are raised in a more serious matter, there's bound to be scope for something better to be written, but there'll also be truckloads more in relation to sources and possible locations by then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sometimes you have to just pull the plug and start again. I'm going with "ignore all rules" to delete because it's just so poorly written it's not helpful. Would be glad if someone would userfy or incubate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oddly, the main article National Football League isn't terribly long, as these things go. It doesn't even mention Las Vegas getting the Raiders, which is weird, for a significant development like that. One could add a line there about potential expansion, and then maybe mention of possible future sites -- if there is ever enough reliable sources. The only RS on the nominated article is maybe the Oregonian, and that's just a capsule mention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article discusses the recent relocations(which is not expansion) and the hopes of other places to have a team, not actual efforts towards creating new teams; most of it isn't even cited. Agree that this subject might merit an article with better sourcing and prose, but it should start from scratch. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Run 51

Run 51 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable band; I could only find significant hit about them online, and it's by a website that worked with them. None of their releases so far were released on a music label, Christian or otherwise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_June_17&oldid=786121833"