Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 November	22 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trade diversion

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

This article has never, as far as I can see, had any reliable independent sources. Actually it only ever seems to have had one reference that even attempted to be a proper source, and that turned out to be on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 21 November (UTC)

Delete: There could be more flaws pointed out in this article but really the fact that there were no sources is enough to be deleted. Wikipedia needs to be strict with this kind of thing to maintain credibility.Grapefruit17 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", also WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, this is definitely an economic concept that is covered in/by numerous publications/organisations, see Preferential Trade Agreements, Trade Creation and Trade Diversion, "The terms trade creation and trade diversion are closely associated with Chicago School economist Jacob Viner (The Customs Union Issue, 1950)." from Trade Creation, Trade Diversion and Trade Creation, Migration, Spillovers,and Trade Diversion: The Impact of Internationalization on Stock Market Liquidity, Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement etc, etc, etc. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable economic term, I've added some references. There is also trade creation as noted by Coolabahapple. However, I've tagged this to be merged into this article - as it makes sense to explain the related concepts in one place.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources given by Coolabahapple and in the article show that the term is notable. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renad Zhdanov

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

Promotional article and likely COI (author name is a close match to the subject, and author has no other contributions). Appears to fail WP:PROF. SCOPUS gives an h-index of 12. Article is bogged down with references to everything the subject ever write, including a number of suspect journals. Any assertion of notability is backed only by primary sources, most of which are under the control of the subject. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GS h-index of 20 for this highly cited field is too low to pass WP:Prof#1. I have removed the vastly bloated bibliography. If the article is kept there is more that could go. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Nothing indicates this BLP passes WP:PROF or an "average professor". As always, the GS h-index is prone to overinflate citation counts, and the SCOPUS h-index of 12 is more realistic. This doesn't even pass the low bar of using citation count indices. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 25 November 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. Both "keep"s are by very new accounts, and very shallowly argued, whereas the "delete"s are by experienced contributors. Sandstein 21:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ardit Bido

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO the sources are essentially affiliated sources or sources that mention him in passing in articles about the national archives or simple appointment notices. Nothing of interest found in a WP:BEFORE search Domdeparis (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable second sources regarding him. The fact that they are focused on his role in the national archives is quite normal per WP:ANYBIO, as long as that is the source of his nitability.Gezimmemishaj (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Gezimmemishaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Please do keep in mind that even major media outlets in Albania are not represented in google news or other related search engines. As such, it would be biased to be based on them for understanding the notability of Albanian notable persons.Gezimmemishaj (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All BLP articles have to be sourced, I am not basing my deletion nomination solely on the lack of sources but as a national archive director it is unlikely that there will be in-depth coverage of this person. This is not the sort of public position that generates much coverage in any country that would go towards proving notability. So unless there are sources that prove his notability now then I don't believe that it is worth keeping the article in the hope that some will be found. Domdeparis (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that David Ferriero and Jeff James (public servant) notability comes precisely from their archives managing role. Both articles are less sourced than this one. And as I searched in google there are plenty of news articles regarding him probably every week. But, whatever, I do not care as it seems to be a bias against Albanians who are only notable in Albania (some days ago a page i created for the rector of the biggest university in albania was attacked for the same reasoning). The sources are plenty for this article so it is a string keep for me.Gezimmemishaj (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about James and please feel free to nominate for deletion if you wish but Ferriero is a heavily sourced article and shows notability as per GNG. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as this is not a valid argument to use in a deletion debate. There is no bias against Albanians or any other nationality especially from my part. Please try and read WP:AGF and do not accuse me of bias without proof as this is a personal attack Domdeparis (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a personal attack. It is a bias of English Wikipedia against persons notable in countries where English is not spoken. The articles in Albanian are a depth coverage of his activities. The same as the rector that I wrote above. The fact that there is nothing in English does mean nothing.Gezimmemishaj (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is worthy to expand the article, and I added some material and plan to add more. Of course it is a noteworthy article, about a person who holds an important position and who is present in media in Albania frequently, as sources provide.Arditrada (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the frequency of the appearance of his name in media but the depth of coverage that is important. This is what is missing in this article. There are not enough in depth secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 07:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find the lack of independent sources disturbing. Astonishingly, an article written by a WP:SPA and supported by other WP:SPAs turns out to be more than a little promotional. I am shocked. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media naturalness theory

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

This reads to me as WP:OR. Over 30 of the 40 or so refs are to a handful of papers by Kock, the person who coined the term, and where the others are available online, they do not reference the term (for example, one cites Kock but prior to the paper in which the term was coined, which would be WP:SYN).

The vast majority of the substantive content is drawn directly from Kock's original papers. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nearly a thousand citations on GS in total. More than 100 citations since early last year, apparently none of them by the author of the theory.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep could be cleaned-up however seems notable per Wikipedia:Notability--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly not WP:OR. One of the previous refs. in the article seems to have been published by a journal that was a accused of predatory publishing, which may have triggered this AfD. That ref. has been already deleted. Most other refs. appear to be to legit journals, some very prestigious ones.--Senortypant (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something is OR if it was just made up on the spot. The sheer number of external sources here make it clear that was not the case. South Nashua (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article indeed cited one-work more than is should be, but the sheer number of resources available for expansion outweighs that. The further reading section has invaluable resource (from different sources). Dedication by editors who have access to these print source can transform this article in unexpected way, in the meantime {{cleanup}} and other appropriate tags can be used to call willing editors attention. But deleting this is not solution. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saoud al-Daweesh

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

Not a notable person. None of the sources discuss the subject in detail. Only passing mentions in connection to his arrest. Pontificalibus (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The so-called "crackdown" looks very much like an attempt to silence potential dissent or opposition, this may receive more coverage later but for now there's nothing on which to build a stand-alone biography. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 22 November 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 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olexandr Starodubtsev

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

Fails WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to absence of substantive independent sourcing. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think he definitely passes WP:GNG based on the coverage in Ukrainian language sources. However, the history of creating this page and the page about him in Ukrainian WP (and the way the page was written) looks like an obvious WP:COI issue. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2Trom News Group

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

All citations point back to sources owned by the same company director as 2Trom in an attempt to legitimise the page. Hope Not Hate have researched the site extensively following the revelation in one of 2Trom's outlets that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is now partnering with a charity. The "charity" is not registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales, but it is registered with Companies House, where the director is, once again, the director of 2Trom.^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspritch (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Archibald, Sarah (14 November 2017). "The curious tale of Stephen Lennon's "Charity" partnership". Hope not hate. Retrieved 14 November 2017.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 refs none establishing notability. Its just a small digital company. Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as next to no information is provided about the company in the sources cited. Possibly fails WP:TOOSOON, as one of the sources cited ([1]) refers to 2Trom as an "emerging news corporation."--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 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 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafay Mall

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to get more generic and mundane than this subject. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 21 November 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 Live at Budokan (Dream Theater album). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumedley

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

Non notable as per WP:NSONGS. No references in the article at all, possibly WP:OR. Permafrost46 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if sources can be found to counter suggestions of WP:OR, merge into Live at Budokan (Dream Theater album) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Live at Budokan (Dream Theater album) – the article is entirely OR and fails WP:SONG so there's nothing important worth keeping, but it's a perfectly acceptable search term. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dream Theater. Vorbee (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaVere Redfield

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

Fails notability as written, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boaderline SINGLE EVENT with no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and merit an article — Ammarpad (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references --BelBivDov (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Praveen Nair

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely. Nearly G11-able promo-spam. Rubbish promotional-sourcing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either trivial, unreliable or affiliated. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.And, Sportsfan 1234, I see that you have got some liking for my nomination statements:)Winged Blades^Godric 10:56, 21 November 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 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Redding

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely. Nearly G11-able promo-spam. Rubbish promotional-sourcing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And yes, {{db-spam}} covers this one. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie dust (narcotic)

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

Not to be confused with just "zombie", "zombie dust" seems to just be a neologism. The cited study doesn't use the words "zombie dust" and it's only ever mentioned in one article. Doesn't appear notable on its own. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to determine that this is a common name for any specific narcotic or narcotic mixture; it's just slang used in one article from 2001. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in a crack house one day. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 21 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TalentLMS

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

References seem to only be non-notable sources and blogs. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same, at best passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article needs improvement. Still there are hundrends of related references on News, Books & Scholars. The product is currently number one on Capterra's list of most afforable LMSs [2] and number four on the list of most user friendly LMSs [3]. It also has hundrends of end-user reviews on directories like Capterra, Getapp and G2Crowd.Pxtreme75 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Pxtreme75 is the author and primary contributor to this article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Not seeing quality sources - PR/business as usual level of coverage only. Seems to fail WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional chock-full of unnecessary details and promotional phrasing, fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a platform for marketing/promotion which appears to be the sole purpose of this article. Oh the references, most are PRIMARY sources and fail the criteria for establishing notability. Of the others, elearningindustry.com is not intellectually independent or neutral as you can request a "quotation" on the website where they recommend LMS companies (among them TalentLMS) and they also feature TalentLMS as an advertiser, therefore fails WP:RS and possibly WP:ORGIND. The academia.edu link also fails to be intellectually independent as the paper's authors describe themselves as follows: In this paper we briefly present our efforts to design the first versión of the gamification engine that will enhance the Talent LMS platform. Since the designers cannot be intellectually independent, this reference fails WP:ORGIND. The other references focus on the product and not the company and fail WP:CORPDEPTH - perhaps there is a case for the product to have an article but there are not enough references to meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that there are no independent reliable sources has not been rebutted. WP:V is not negotiable. Sandstein 22:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totara LMS

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

References point to either the company's own work, social media, or link to awards that don't have intrinsic notability. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article needs additional external references (there are many). Still the product is the most widely used enterprise port of Moodle and as such it has Wikipedia value. Pxtreme75 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Pxtreme75, and rename as "Totara Learn". I haven't addressed the need for sources independent of the company's site, but I have updated some of the info on the page. Note that since September the software has been rebranded as "Totara Learn". Presumably we should rename the page (keeping the edit history together?) and make Totara LMS a redirect. — Gpc62 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've backed out the keep close here to get more policy based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows no reliable sources so doing a few searches. This despite being easy significant coverage is doubly bad: A press release and according to Google News a blog. I'm not so sure Moodle News is a blog though, given its name and layout. The rest of Moodle News sources found in this search are the same. This is also a press release. There are only press releases in this search and passing mentions also dominated the one before. Thus, delete. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carmun.com

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

Notability concerns. The coverage is largely from university newspapers and is mostly "check out this new thing"; the coverage was not sustained and the site never turned into anything notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Boston.com isn't nothing, but generally seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. As a comment, the previous AfD is quite perplexing. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 21 November 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 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Society of the Washington Area

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

Not notable enough for an article. Elektricity (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete As far as I am aware this is merely one of several mosques in the area with little to make it stand out, and there's not much of a claim to notability in the article. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 21 November 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. Essentially, nobody except the nominator wants to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuo-Chen Chou

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

This article is pure advertorial and, to a high degree of certainty, it's an autobiography. Most of the content was written by two WP:SPAs, SanDiego2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Low-frequency internal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both usernames suggest they are the subject. At best it needs aggressive pruning of WP:PEACOCK, but actually I think it's a WP:TNT job. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. H index of 130 and ISI Highly Cited Researcher multiple times. The way I read it, the entry describes a lot of awards and honors, but it just doesn't come across as overly promotional except maybe in a couple of spots. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not address the absence of any credible reliable independent sources. Things like H-index indicate people who are likely to be notable, which in Wikipedia parlance means that they have been written about by reliable independent secondary soruces, but it's not a magic want that confers inherent notability in the absence of such coverage. This article is drawn entirely from primary sources. ISI "highly cited researcher" status is of disputable validity, as our article points out. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1. It could use a good de-peacocking, but AfD is not cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you're misrepresenting WP:PROF, Guy. It's not that the high h-index confers inherent notability, it's that it implies that a very large number of scholarly papers (i.e. independent reliable sources) have covered Chou's work – in this case, according to Google, a whopping 51,849 of them. The current articles needs attention, to be sure, but with that level of coverage it's inconceivable that one couldn't write a satisfactory encyclopaedia article about Chou. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence WP:TNT. I have no view on whether we should have an article, but this article, we should not have. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Khushi

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely. Nearly G11-able promo-spam. Rubbish promotional-sourcing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep needs rewriting but seems to be one of the most notable Indian DJs with national press sources Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 28 November 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. Has since been rewritten as a sort of dab page. Sandstein 21:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Johannesburg

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

A statistical concept without official definition or statistics (the only stats coming from now defunct looking4.co.za) Batternut (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council" of the late 1990s referred to an area that is now slightly smaller (ie not covering Midrand) than the current City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, somewhat contrary to the aims of this article. Batternut (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Batternut, hope you're doing well. I noticed that Greater Johannesburg is officially defined and delineated by the South African Government.[4][5] It has clearly defined TLC/TRC and district council codes. This seems a Keep to me per WP:GEOLAND, being a legally defined place. Perhaps you might not have seen these government sources; would you be able to consider withdrawing your nomination if these sources satisfy you? Warmly, Lourdes 03:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - thanks Lourdes for an interesting point: that "Greater Johannesburg" was a definition used only in the 1996 census, and by the transitional Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council (GJMC) during its brief existence from 1995 to 2000 (see Johannesburg#Government). If its notability rests on that definition it cannot be correct for the article to actually be about a different area, encompassing East Rand and West Rand. I would agree to a re-purposing the article to the 1996-2000 definition. The citation problem the article currently has could then be dealt with. Batternut (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batternut, thanks for the reply. I'm not an expert in the geography of South Africa. While you're mentioning that this definition was used only in the 1996 census, I have seen government links like this which refer to the Greater Johannesburg area as recent as August 2017. But I'll go by what you're saying, as long as you use reliable sourcing within the article. You can reposition the contents of the article to correctly represent what Greater Johannesburg encompassed (or encompasses). As the area has been recognized by the government, notability is established per WP:GEOLAND. I'll leave it to your discretion to modify the contents as such. If you would wish to consider withdrawing your nomination, then it would be good if you could leave a note at the top of this discussion for the closing editor. Warmly, Lourdes 14:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closer inspection of the 1996 census codes linked by Lourdes reveals that, with the inclusion of Midrand/Rabie Ridge/Ivory Park, that definition is conterminous with the current City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. Should we consider a redirect to that article to avoid duplication (ie a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK)? Batternut (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batternut, I'm not clear how my sources could make you reach the conclusion you are mentioning. If you could provide any reliable source that supports your inference, I'll be open to changing my view. The Department of Water Affairs, Republic of South Africa's 2011 report on water certification mentions Greater Johannesburg is a part of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (see page 17 of their 2011 report). A plain reading perhaps would suggest that the Municipality you suggest is much larger than the Greater Johannesburg area, but not the same. Like I said, if you have any sources that clearly show that these both are the same, then I'll change my !vote. Therefore, in my opinion, there are three options here for consideration:

We keep the article titled Greater Johannesburg and stick to exactly what the government and other reliable sources mention about Greater Johannesburg.
We keep the article but rename it to the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area". (The article says Greater Johannesburg is also knowns as "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area". There are innumerable recent reliable sources mentioning this area. For example, this government paper defining the area's provincial spatial development framework says, "[...] the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area [is] (the industrial heartland of South Africa, including Tshwane and the City of Johannesburg)". This book says, "Witwatersrand also denotes the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area, which spans the length of the gold-bearing reef.").
We redirect the article to your target, if you can provide sources that clarify that these two areas are the same.

If you can provide the sources, that would be wonderful; else, we stick to the first two options. Warmly, Lourdes 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - I'd love to find some output from the 1996 census online, but have so far failed. The conterminous region theory stems particularly from "Final-term report" (PDF). City of Johannesburg. 12 January 2007. p. 22, ch 1. (a citation I put into Johannesburg#Government recently). Page 22 describes absorbing the MLCs plus Midrand Modderfontein, but Kempton Park confuses me, it might have been split up, I've seen it mentioned in both Joburg and East Rand. Btw the book Lourdes mentioned cites Wikipedia so must be discounted. I'll get back here again very soon. Batternut (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

option 1 - the 1996 census TLC (Transitory Local Council) list provides a difficult snapshot to work with - it defined "Greater Johannesburg" in terms of the transitory MLC's that existed for only 5 years. Most government and other RS is about the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area"/"Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council", which does provide some maps. The current City of Johannesburg MM is clearly a reforming of the GJMC with some boundary changes - indeed changes that take it closer to the 1996 TLC list, though not precisely. Other mostly non-official sources though have used the term "Greater Johannesburg" meaning the Rand / the Reef / Witwatersrand (in its widest sense).
option 2 - actually relatively few official mentions of "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area", only 16 for site:gov.za, compared with Durban about 65 or Cape Town about 641. All of the gov.za results I have seen are tangential, non-defining.
option 3 - the 1996 Census TLC list suggests some differences between the definition then and the current City of Jo'burg municipality. However, civic boundaries often vary over time without wikipedia having new articles for each version.

I think what this period saw was a slow-motion concretisation of definition of a new and wider metro to replace the old apartheid city. I see this five year period as the history of the birth of the current City of Johannesburg MM. Building a separate article (options 1) on "Greater Johannesburg" will amount largely to a summary of the history of current City of Johannesburg MM, probably with the addition of a selection of non-official interpretations along the lines of the wider Witwatersrand / PWV / most of Gauteng meanings, amounting to a rather unsatisfactory disambiguation page.

Btw, I think it would be best keep just a passing reference to GJMC in Johannesburg#Government, moving most GJMC stuff to City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality#History or possibly History of Johannesburg. Batternut (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I appreciate the time you've taken to analyze and research. Unfortunately, unless you are able to find reliable sources supporting the interpretations you're giving, these inferences should not be included on Wikipedia. You say: "All of the gov.za results I have seen are tangential, non-defining." The sources I've given above define the area of Greater Johannesburg precisely, providing district and region information. Your inference perhaps is also that the number of government sources mentioning "Greater Johannesburg" is less than the number of sources mentioning other areas. That's not a critical parameter; as long as multiple sources do legally define the area, which in this case they do. I respect your opinions above, but as there are no sources to support your interpretations, I would finally prefer sticking to the first two options I have provided above. Thanks again for the effort taken out in this discussion. It has been a learning experience. I hope to work with you on other articles too. Warmly, Lourdes 13:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us look closely at the sources you have provided:

1996 census TLC, DCcodes - a list transitional councils disbanded 4 years later.
this (SARS contacts) - non-defining, but Lists Greater Johannesburg area amongst other areas Gauteng South; East Rand; West Rand and Gauteng north (including Centurion and Pretoria), therefore pretty well constrains Greater Johannesburg to a space the shape of City of Johannesburg MM (OR of course).
DWA 2011 report - non-defining, though the one mention, "Greater Johannesburg : City of Johannesburg MM" on p18, merely suggestive of a relationship;
SPISYS - one mention, "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area (the industrial heartland of South Africa, including Tshwane and the City of Johannesburg" hardly defining, and actually written by the "Dennis Moss Partnership", conflicts flatly with the others
This book - says "by Quelle Wikipedia", therefore cyclic ref, must ignore.

The TLC list is the only RS with any precision (so far...). As mentioned, definitions that were dropped by the next census. Do we really want a "Greater Johannesburg" article nailed to a transitional snapshot of boundaries used in 1996? Cities always change over time. Batternut (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cities may change over time but I took the time to go through Google Scholar and Google News sources. I realized that there are many academic and news reports post year 1998-99 that continue to refer to "Greater Johannesburg".[6] For example, this publication of LSE and University of Cape Town notes: "Greater Johannesburg is a city of about 3 million people but is part of a conurbation comprising a population of something closer to 8 million which includes...",[7] Many articles also have "Greater Johannesburg" in their titles, for example: "In-migration and Living Conditions of Young Adolescents in Greater Johannesburg, South Africa",[8] "The question of road traffic congestion and decongestion in the greater Johannesburg area",[9] "The impact of gated communities on spatial transformation in the Greater Johannesburg area",[10] etc. The Independent Online writes: "By comparison, the average in greater Johannesburg, comprising the City of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni metros...". Financial Times carried a feature in May 2017 titled: "Investing in Gauteng: Greater Johannesburg".[11] Political parties like ANC specifically refer to "Greater Johannesburg".[12] This 1999 book is titled "Historical Dictionary of Greater Johannesburg ".[13] The review of this book also addresses Greater Johannesburg.[14] What I'm trying to mention is that in scholarly sources, news reports, popular culture etc, the terminology of "Greater Johannesburg" has continued quite strongly. Add to this you have mentioned above that your inference that Greater Johannesburg area is the same as the municipality may be original research ("...City of Johannesburg MM (OR of course)". Further, a "municipality" is an administrative body, while a "region" is a geographic mass. Equating the two seems illogical. Then there is actually no other option but to keep the article. Thanks, Lourdes 01:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See #Sorry, but none. Batternut (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johannesburg; no opinion on if {{R from misnomer}} is appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly a distinct geographic entity relative to the other Johannesburg pages mentioned here (overlapping, but distinct). A natural geographic term that is frequently used in sources (per Lourdes). A page discussing the region is appropriate. Lourdes' arguments are clear and seem valid. So far as I can see, Batternut's arguments seem to involve a lot of muddying of the water (eg, lots of detailed points that turn out to be wrong or irrelevant to the larger point) and dubious inferences. I don't have the patience of the Lourdes to go through and rebut in detail. Power-enwiki says redirect to Johannesburg, but offers no reasons. I'm agnostic about whether to add "Metropolitan Area" to the page title (discussed as an option by Lourdes). Either way, one name would be the page title (eg, Greater Johannesburg) and the other should be a redirect (eg, Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area). --Gpc62 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I said redirect because this is a two-paragraph article with no content that gives no indication this is a commonly-used term (the references barely use the term) and the Johannesburg article already discusses the full metropolitan area and not just the city proper. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but none of the links Lourdes found above seems to define an area called "Greater Johannesburg". Google news and scholar also find lots of hits for "Downtown Johannesburg" and "Central Johannesburg" (more news in fact). I don't think we particularly need articles on them. Redirects perhaps... Batternut (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Batternut, thanks for reworking the article. That's a gracious move. I haven't researched on Central Johannesburg or Downtown Johannesburg, but examples like Downtown Los Angeles or Central Los Angeles suggest that on a case by case basis, we can also consider separate articles for Central and Downtown Johannesburg. But that's a discussion which belongs to another page, not here. Thanks once more, Lourdes 07:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - in the spirit of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion I have reworked the article to what I consider verifiable. I remain unconvinced of its worth. Batternut (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At its best the article is just a disambiguation page, and one that has a clear primary target, and indeed no other real targets, so according to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, my vote (perhaps implicit as nominator) is redirect. Batternut (talk) 14:11, 27 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panjabi Hit Squad

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

Non-notable musicians. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait (M83 song)

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

Article is virtually identical to the version from the last deletion discussion, which resulted in a redirect. Only change is a chart position, however the chart quoted in the article only officially goes up to 150, and the source found says that this song charted at 154 (and does not name what chart this was from). Fails WP:GNG, the song is mentioned in passing by most sources either as part of the artists' or directors' greater body of work. PGWG (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd forgotten I'd voted on a previous AfD for this song. The chart position comes from Hung Medien's lescharts.com website [15] but I'm not entirely clear how these charts are generated. Richard3120 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Richard3120: The problem is that I can't see on that website specifically what chart it is quoting, other than it being a French chart. I'm not at all familiar with the professional music industry in France, so I have no clue if there is only the one (SNEP) chart in France, or if there are multiple charts that it could be referring to. PGWG (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PGWG: the lescharts.com website is part of the group of national chart archives supplied by the Hung Medien group, which have been deemed reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. The lescharts are essentially the SNEP charts – the lescharts website does credit SNEP and IFOP for supplying the data, and the SNEP charts actually do go up to 200, not 150. However, it has been noted that there are slight discrepancies between the SNEP charts and the lescharts positions, and it's not entirely clear why this is. But lescharts is effectively an archive of the official French chart. Richard3120 (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Interesting. I had taken my official chart position numbers from our article on SNEP, which says that the official charts are the top 100 singles, 150 albums sold at full price, 40 compilations sold at full price, and 40 albums/compilations sold at mid- or budget price. I'm guessing that this article is possibly out of date, then, if the official chart actually goes up to 200 places. Nevertheless, even with one week on the national chart, I don't think the coverage is significant enough that the song meets the GNG. PGWG (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SevenHills Hospital

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

promotional, to the extent that removing promotion would leave only a directory entry. The references are essentially press releases and notices, and articles by people who work at the hospital. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete – most of the sources only mention the hospital in passing, and it fails notability standards for hospitals. Natureium (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Mumbai branch is 1500 beds, making it larger than e.g. Addenbrooke's Hospital. If this was in a Western country it's inconceivable that it wouldn't be notable. Plenty of sources found in a brief English-language Google search e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has valid reliable references that meet WP:GNG and the subject itself as chain of many organizations. Simple search also reveals coverage from reliable sources not yet used and perhaps in non English sources more exists. Also I learnt that Hospitals receive near or similar inclusion leverage that schools enjoy due to my experience in CSD and XfD with village clinics, that don't have 1% coverage or significance of this article — Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've edited the article for grammar etc, and I'll try to get back to it later today to take a bash at the content and references. I think that there is enough there to warrant an article. Leschnei (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- all the hallmarks of promotion. Two hospitals is a chain? Gimme a break. What hospital describes the investors? Patients do not confer notability. The list of departments is not notable. Weasel words at every discussion of accreditation. I don't want a hospital that is a member of a club like AHA. Imagine if you doctor told you had a disease like rotavirus? Written by SPA. TNT is my suggestion. Let a qualified editor write a new one. I volunteer. Or Leschnei, who needs to be bold Rhadow (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it! I just slogged my way through a bunch of articles (including those suggested by Pontificalibus), and I'm going to re-write the article deleting much of the present content. It will take me a little time - I forgot about Thanksgiving. If the decision is to delete, perhaps the article could be moved to draft space and I will continue to work on it. Leschnei (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've largely re-written the article using (mostly) newspaper articles. It's less promotional and, hopefully, its notability is more established. Any further trimming welcome. Leschnei (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clean up the reference errors in a bit. Leschnei (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Leschnei (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am still struggling with the characterization of this hospital holding company as a chain. By the WP definition, the two locations would share "central management, and usually have standardized business methods and practices." One campus is accredited by JCI, the other not. That doesn't sound like standardized business methods and practices to me.
I would not say the article is factual yet. At no time between 2010 and 20 November 2017 [16] has the Mumbai campus ever had more than 300 beds operational. That's a far cry from the "largest hospital in Asia with 1,500 beds." Rhadow (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points. I have removed the words chain and like. It might be most accurate to say that it is 2 hospitals opened by Dr. Maganti, but I can't find any reliable sources for the first hospital - I don't know if Maganti opened that hospital or had assumed control at a later date.

I qualified the size claim in the header. The exact number of operational beds is hard to pin down. For example, in 2013, it appears that an additional 300 beds were added. So I simply added that in 2017, there are 300 beds. If you'd like it stated more forcefully, perhaps you could be bold and do it. Leschnei (talk) 13:34, 29 November 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 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Razoo (company)

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

Largely self-referenced, the rest seem to be either non-notable sources or press releases. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when I accepted this article at AFC I thought the sourcing was a bit weak but seeing the size of the company and its history I was sure there were sources out there and it would survive an AFD. I had a quick look and found these [17], [18] where it is mentioned as being in the same league as Kickstart, GoFundMe and Indiegogo. There are other sources out there such as [19]. Domdeparis (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry, all the sourcing here doesn't pass the guidelines of WP:ORG or is excluded per WP:SPIP. Domdeparis was fine to accept this from AfC, the standard there is a 50% chance of survival at AfD, but unfortunately I think we have to go with delete here. The sourcing he showed above doesn't meet our standards: source 1 is a part of a list, which we consider routine coverage in corporate/company AfDs. Source 2 from Crux is sponsored content (i.e. an actual advertisement and not just a recycled press release). Source three is also a list, but on top of that it is from Mashable, which we don't consider a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability. Nothing in the article is independent and non-PR sourcing. Unfortunately, this company is not a notable subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. PR/marketing sources, pure WP:CORPSPAM. Please don't accept this type of spam in the future at AFC (ping User:Domdeparis). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for the advice Piotr but as Tony said there are a certain amount of articles that we accept that will not survive a deletion discussion. And just to put this into perspective my AFD stats stand at a success rate of 80.6% for 390 discussions and if you ignore the no consensus I am at 85.7%. Of those 390 I nominated 276 pages with a 78% deletion rate and ignoring the no consensus this goes up to 83.5% success rate, so I think I will continue to trust my own judgement. If you're interested in checking out your own stats here is the link https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/. Domdeparis (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bunch of primary sources and some unreliable websites. No sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:CORP — Ammarpad (talk) 10:08, 21 November 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 Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. As a footnote: if your !vote is for a redirect, please don't say it's "Delete by...", "Soft delete..." or anything other than "redirect". A redirect is a redirect. A delete is a delete. And never the twain shall meet. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime Entertainment

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

Delete There is not a single source for Summertime Entertainment. It has produced only one film, Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. I don't know if this company will produce any upcoming animated films. I also think that this company is defunct and future sequels of Legends of Oz, Dorothy's Return might be handled by a different animation studio. There are no indications of notability, and it fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Evil Idiot 23:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found three sources, but the real story appears to be the two founders, the Carroll brothers, who have had at least one production company before this and reportedly went on to Stereo Vision Entertainment (unreliable source), and whose fundraising methods have raised complaints and led to censure in various states. I'm not sure where this story best fits, especially since I started getting into unreliable sources and was unable to confirm the company closing down in 2015 as the article states. Otherwise I would argue for a change of focus and move to an article on the founders with redirects from Summertime, Alpine Productions, and possibly others. But there are three sources about the company now in the article, so I'm coming down on the "keep" side. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, Business idea that went under, nothing good at the end of the day meant a waste of an article. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:35, 2 December 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, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete by redirecting to Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. ~~Maybe in few years they'll become notable if they keep making stuff like that.~~ As they went under, that's not likely... For now, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return since operations did not extend beyond this film. gidonb (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by redirecting to Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return as suggested above. Ventric (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I third that. For example, Majestic Studios redirects to its only production, Limbo of the Lost, for similar reasons. 165.91.13.3 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 07:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkling Red Star (2007 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged since March 2012. The article was deprodded by Patar knight, but still has the notability tag and I believe that the source added is not sufficient for notability. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is an animated adaption of a live action, which is in turn an adaptation of a book, we could probably just merge this content into the article for the first film if all else fails. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the source I added, which is a 16-page academic peer reviewed article from 2011 about htis review, it got coverage in AP [20] and it was shortlisted ofr a Hong Kong animation award. [21] Several pages of this paper also discuss it. [22] But like Tokyogirl said, even if this is insufficent to meet NFILM, it should still be merged with the original film. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a feature-length film by a famous director distributed countrywide by a major Chinese studio, easily meets WP:NFILM. in addition to the English sources mentioned by Patar knight, it has received significant coverage in Chinese media, see People's Daily, China.com, Sichuan Online, Nanfang, Sohu, and many others. -Zanhe (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Blair

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

Actor and writer in a bunch of non-notable films, of which only two have had some useful run in film festivals and of which only one has a Wikipedia article. It's sourced to IMDb mainly. Recommend redirect to his most notable work Deadly Revisions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced all IMDB references for this page with other sites for reference and have added more sites for reference as well. (I was unaware IMDB was not an accepted source, so I apologize for that.). I cannot speak to what one might consider a "notable" project versus a "non-notable" project, but I do know Mr. Blair is a fairly well known name in the indie horror community and getting more prominent each year. Thank you for your consideration. ChesterPlate (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Chester[reply]

Delete minor roles especially in non-notable productions do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film/TV/Theater personality with a diverse career, meets WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Deadly Revisions which references show significant coverage of his career? The ones posted are all name drops. Garden Party Massacre is a maybe but could use more detail. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Outside of Deadly Revisions which references show significant coverage of his career? A: Aside from the two you mention, also Cold Lang Syne. Specifically in Cold Lang Syne, Daily Variety, November 29, 2010, REVIEW; Pg. 38, 394 words and in the article included in our entry. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Les Martin

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

Unable to find significant coverage to meet GNG nor do I believe the writing of tie-in novels meet NAUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a two of his x-files books, he is a published author and should pass on WP:NAUTHOR. books on amazon. Govvy (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @User:Govvy, please explain which criterion of WP:NAUTHOR is met. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply @J04n:, He is a published author, hmm, have they gone and changed NAUTHOR again? You use to qualify if you have published works. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NAUTHOR and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as it stands literally has no sources. We require coverage. Being a novelisationist/writer of books that are part of a large media franchise, is not the type of thing that makes someone default notable, and unless the books spawn the media franchise, instead of being part of a system that has already started and they are spawned by popularity elsewhere, meaning that the authors are not the originators of most of the intelectual content, the people writing them are probably not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 24 November 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 Early Music (Lachrymæ Antiquæ). Sandstein 21:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uleg-Khem

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

I couldn't find any sources to substantiate any claims to notability or that the song passes WP:NSONG. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to redirect to the Kronos Quartet album since it technically isn't their song. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to Tuvan throat singing? At the risk of being accused of philistinism, I'd imagine someone searching for this song (which I know a couple of the Tuvan performers/groups have recorded) would be less surprised at a redirect that way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Early_Music_(Lachrymæ_Antiquæ)#Track_listing where the subject is mentioned; not independently notable for a stand-alone article, but a plausible search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Early Music (Lachrymæ Antiquæ). This song fails WP:NSONG, but is part of that album. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:22, 27 November 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyosho Double Dare

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

Only references are to a niche magazine, and I couldn't find any better ones online. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Toy? Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StackCommerce

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

No substantial references to show notability -- the Forbes article is essentially a press release, by a "contributor", which Forbes properly annotates as " Opinions expressed by Forbes commentators are their own" -- ditto for TechCrunch-- and everything else a notice. Accepted from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator. Are we to understand that "Accepted from AfC" is a reason for deletion? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is routine notices and WP:SPIP sources. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources: the company exists but have not accomplished anything significant just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 24 November 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. Really there's no particular reason to relist a third time here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil McGuinness

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

Fails WP:NAFL and most likely fails WP:GNG, no references in article to establish notability and cannot find any other sources about him. Flickerd (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the moment, but open to changing my mind if sources can be provided. 200 games in the SANFL, even if they were all when it was a second-level competition, is a reasonable achievement and he could meet WP:NAFL criterion #3 if significant coverage in independent reliable sources can be demonstrated. I had a look but couldn't find anything easily myself. Someone might need access to the Adelaide Advertiser archives of the 1990s to really be sure – if someone can find a couple of decent length articles there primarily about McGuinness then I would be willing to change to keep. Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep >200 games, Premierships & a B&F indicates a significant career in the second level state league, 2 articles listed indicates GNG is likely, especially given how poorly the 1990s are covered online. The-Pope (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coment I was able to find a couple of early 2000s articles on Factiva and EBSCOhost that deal primarily with him. I suspect that if someone was to visit the newspaper archive at the State Library in Adelaide, they would find be able to find some coverage of his earlier career. Hack (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 21 November 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. Three users have advanced "keep" arguments, among whom only one has produced sources in support. A spot-check of those sources do not demonstrate clear-cut notability (one of them, for instance, appears to be a review of a book published by this club). Therefore, I see a consensus to delete. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis and Badminton Club of Reykjavik

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

Non-notable organization, lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable badminton organization. This is the oldest badminton club in Iceland. Lack of GNG doesn't mean this article is non-notable. Stvbastian (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, lack of WP:GNG means the article is non-notable. Ifnord (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are around nine thousand results on Google for TBR (the short name for the club) on Morgunblaðið (the countries oldest national newspaper) website alone. Then you you have the possibility to search for both the full Icelandic and English name, and also expand the search to Fréttablaðið and RÚV websites who are the other two major national news organizations in the country. Just out of curiosity, did you do the proper procedure and "do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template" as is stated under the Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion? -- Dammit_steve (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable badminton organization. See also interwikis. 20+ national team titles in Iceland. Florentyna (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is certainly notable and meets WP:GNG as the biggest club in a country. Only that the article didn't get attention for long, but that doesn't strip it of notability per WP:NEXIST — Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If reliable sources exist, then why is nobody citing any? Old it may be, but if nobody comes up with actual sources then we have nothing to base an article on. Sandstein 21:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and User:Sandstein. As I mentioned above, with no claims to notability, the article fails WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not enough for something to be the oldest "something" - there must also be media sources covering the group to meet Wikipedia guidelines. I visited the Morgunblaðið site and searched for TBR [[23]], but the only coverage I can find appears to be match results. I also went to Fréttablaðið to search for TBR [[24]]. Same thing - just routine match results. This is what you'd see in the local news coverage of a local paper. What we'd like to see in order to demonstrate notability is in depth coverage of the group itself. If indeed it is the largest club in Iceland one would expect to see some coverage to that effect, and also some coverage outside the country in foreign publications. This article is so short now that there's no harm in deleting it - if any sources come up and anyone takes an interest, it can be recreated with more meat. It has been in this same sparse condition for almost 13 years. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are 2 refs, a facebook page and a link to the club website. Interested editors have had two weeks to source the article but have been unable to do so. Szzuk (talk)
Delete No surprises to me that the {{Unreferenced}} banner-template was removed at the same time as the two Ext links unacceptable as references were added in 2010. I've also considered WP:CCS when !voting delete.-Semperito (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated, it is a fairly old club so older sources could be difficult to find. For older Icelandic news, timarit.is is a good source. However, the search in older issues is not perfect (Looks like they automaticaly scanned the words in the papers, it doesn't always work as some letters are wrong). To complicate it a bit more, you also have to search for either the full Icelandic name (Tennis- og badmintonfélag Reykjavíkur) or the short version (TBR). Still, a 5 minutes search turned up some sources. Like this one from 1964 (Page 5 and 9). Another from 1964 (Starts on page 5, continues on page 8). From 1966. Here is one from 1999 -- Dammit_steve (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Sandstein. I am happy- keen, even- to be convinced that there are sources out there; but, as the feller says, in that case where are they? WP:OFFLINE, is, after all supplementary to WP:V, so we need the second before the first. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 11:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I actually did point to a few new sources above your answer and I've added them to the article. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems bizarre that we are wasting time debating - and trawling up little-more than passing historic mentions (one being a book-review of the club's primary-source publication) only by virtue of modern facilities - keeping something on En Wiki that does not appear on Is Wiki?. Those of you with Chrome may do better than me trying to copy/paste, then machine-translate, the scanned .pdf text. It all smacks of Law of Diminishing Returns.
If it's so important to some editors, instead of insisting on keeping as-is, think about redirect/merge - a few lines only without the infobox - to Reykjavík#Sports teams? This make more sense? This does not imply I've changed my 'delete' !vote.-Semperito (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oldest badminton club in Iceland -Selenemoon (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC) — Selenemoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the oldest badminton club of Iceland doesn't make the subject notable. Irrespective of its standing in the society, the subject has to pass WP:GNG to have an article here. Even WP:NEXIST says that suitable sources (suitable independent, reliable sources) must exist, which is not the case here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:36, 29 November 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 America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. I've been going back and forth between no consensus and redirect for a while here, but I seem to have settled on redirect as the fairest option. As far as actual valid arguments go (and there are plenty of invalid ones to sift through), there is fairly even disagreement over whether the sources provided clear the bar of WP:ROUTINE (sources must be more than routine), and also whether WP:SIGCOV is met by the sources provided, some of which are regional roundups and some of which seem to discuss individual games - some not even in the tournament - as opposed to the entire tournament. (Note that WP:OSE goes both ways - while the existence of articles for other conferences' tournaments does not affect the suitability of this one for an article, nor does the non-existence of articles for other years' tournaments for this conference.) In the end, though, the vast majority of the scant information that is covered by the potentially notability-giving sources is already included in the redirect target, so the content is generally maintained anyways, just in a different place.

I would also encourage those inclined to start a discussion about tournament notability as Tim Templeton suggests; as Govvy says college sports (especially association football) are really in the WP:NSPORTS gray area. I note that several people have suggested that WP:NSEASONS applies, but it doesn't - that portion as currently worded is for individual team seasons, and tournaments in general aren't mentioned outside of specific sports on the WP:NSPORTS page. ansh 666 08:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament

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

The previous season was deleted by AfD at the start of this year. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season.) This article fails the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NSEASONS, WP:GNG) for the same reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sir Sputnik:, with all due respect, how many citations to relevant, third party links are you looking for until you vacate yourself from the WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Quidster4040 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Per my comment above, the article meets the notability guidelines of WP:NSEASONS for the following reasons:
- Per WP:NSEASONS, "Team season (or in this case tournament) articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players". We should aspire for these pages to not fall under WP:NOTDIR. The following sources are cited to cover the relevant topics of information in this article, as in, where it is, who played, and who contested the championship, and what was the outcome for the finalists.

America East website, for official organization verification
Albany Student Press
Burlington Free Press
Baltimore Sun
Lowell Sun
I'm also confident if further citations are needed beyond these third party sources that covered the tournament, we could find plenty of information, analysis from the likes of the NCAA website, TopDrawerSoccer, SBI, SoccerAmerica, and other publications that exclusively cover soccer. Not having enough citations, and yes, only seven citations is quite a lowly number, does not constitute the article therefore fails WP:NSEASONS

- Next, the nominator believes that this article does not meet WP:GNG. The article actually does meet GNG for the following reasons:
  - First concern may be it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. A quick Google search of "America East college soccer" results in 1,950,000 pages. A news search brings back 3,970,000 results. A search explicity for "college soccer news" draws 8,400,000 results. The first pages of these results shows extensive coverage of the tournament from third party sources, newspapers, sports-focused websites and soccer-focused websites. Clearly, this meets the significant coverage criteria. So let's move on...
  - Reliable sources is the next concern potentially. So what is a secondary source? I think all the listed articles that detail and explain that are beyond the athletics websites are good barometers. So here are 10 links that focus or discuss on the A-East Tournament. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. I think this meets enough secondary sourcing beyond the main athletic websites.
  - Multiple sources expected. Article has seven sources, and could easily have close to 20. Meets criteria.
  - Independent sources. All these websites, sans perhaps the Albany Student Press (although it is not an athletics website), are independent on the tournament, meaning we might have just 19 sources in this discussion.
  - Final concern would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Are these just brief summaries? No these articles feature interviews, summaries on the season, perspectives and explain the match more than just a box score.

That being said, I strongly believe it is safe to say that this article easily meets WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. I'm deeply worried that the nomination was made out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than thoroughly examining whether or not the article truly meets GNG and NSEASONS. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment let's actually provide reasons for supporting a deletion, instead of a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE argument. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No independent notability but a plausible search term. Sourcing in the article shows individual matches get some local level reporting, but so does pretty much every league in countries where football is popular. I'm not seeing any specific coverage of the season as a whole event. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This article's about the tournament, not the whole season. Tournaments generally get more coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources clearly indicate significant coverage of the tournament. I too am concerned that this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. There are plenty of sources. Knock it off. Smartyllama (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Individual match reports =/= coverage of the tournament. Where are the articles on the tournament as an event in itself? Happy to accept the tournament is notable, happy to accept the teams are notable. This doesn't mean that individual iterations of the tournament are notable in themselves. They need to show GNG as an independent subject. For example, are there any articles from third parties previewing the tournament as a whole or summarizing the tournament post completion? Bringing together disparate match reports and saying that = GNG is too much like WP:SYNTH for my liking. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, per my reason above, if you take the time to read my post, you would see that there are more than just match reports. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I really don't understand why you are applying WP:NSEASONS to this, this comes under WP:SPORTSEVENT, also is the competition competitive or friendly, and where does it sit in the ladder, American soccer seems to do my head in sometimes for being so poorly organised. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite organized, there is simply a lot of bureaucracy at this level of the sport in the U.S. that can make it look like a hot mess. This tournament that is being nominated for deletion is a competitive tournament, and part of college soccer in the United States. In the U.S., college/university sports (especially American football and basketball) are generally very popular and do serve as avenues for nurturing professional athletes. This tournament is the championship for the America East Conference, one of the 20 conferences that play in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's first division. (There are three divisions). Each conference at this level selects one team to receive an automatic berth in the NCAA Tournament, which is what this tournament's purpose is for. At the top collegiate division, there is normally significant press coverage, as these tournaments can exhibit future soccer players that may play in MLS or USL. Several professional footballers such as Clint Dempsey, Vedad Ibišević, Neven Subotić, Santiago Solari, Alexi Lalas and Alejandro Bedoya played college soccer in the United States before turning pro. Nowadays, many pro athletes in MLS go through the academy ranks, but college soccer does serve as a net for players that may have been overlooked at the academy level. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is an article that would otherwise be a redlink in the navbox (Template:2017 NCAA Division I men's soccer season) at the bottom of the page. No reason to delete it. PCN02 WPS 19:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit the link out of the template. Elapsed time, six seconds. Sheesh. Ravenswing 06:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the above keep votes have some weight, I'll look for more independent coverage. Still a tad unsure of the tournament's long term coverage or if it meets WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A powerful lot of turgid and irrelevant arguments here. First off, this just fails SIGCOV and ROUTINE; despite airy assertions that sources exist that discuss this particular season of this particular tournament in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, none have been produced, and the article is free of aforementioned "well-sourced prose." It is not a valid defense at AfD to assert that qualifying sources may exist; they must be shown to exist. I'm unmoved (and hope the closing admin is likewise unmoved) by simple lists of the media outlets providing this tournament with routine sports coverage.
Beyond that, whether players in this tournament go on to professional soccer, is "part of college soccer" (we did notice that, thanks), whether pro players once played college soccer and whether this particular tournament was competitive are just plain irrelevant to the discussion. Was this a tournament that people played in, attended and followed? Seems so. Does any of this have anything to do with whether it meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article? No. Ravenswing 06:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems more fixed on WP:ATTP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with assumption that the pro-keep argument is "turgid" or "irrelevant". If you read my argument it definitely follows under the WP:SIGCOV umbrella. The point that it receives coverage, especially from a wealth of sources certainly fits the SIGCOV narrative. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A lot of non-notable players and this tournament imo is not notable. Also, Ravenswing's points are valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the tournament determines an automatic entrant into the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship, which makes it notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you link to the notability criterion that satisfies? Certainly not WP:SPORTSEVENT, which governs the notability of individual series. In any event, notability not being inherited, its connection with the NCAA soccer championship is irrelevant. Ravenswing 01:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSEASONS says:

A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.

This tournament sends a winner to a post season appearance. Division I is the top collegiate level. I'm interpreting that to show notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ravenswing is correct, sources must shown to exist. Yes, there's plenty of routine coverage, but in depth coverage of the tournament is required. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per my closing comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 November 30, so that a clearer consensus may emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Opining because I've reviewed the sources and the arguments here, but am now too deep into this to close it. After having read the sources in question, I do not see them as providing anything more than routine coverage of the matches and teams in question. I do not see them as going far enough towards establishing the notability of the tournament itself: they possibly establish notability for the seasons of the individual teams, but I'm uncertain about that, too. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm relatively new to this whole process, so I don't really understand why this was closed in the first place. Those advocating delete aren't really citing (or at least linking to) any Wikipedia policies that state why the sourcing is inadequate and what is required for the article to be notable. Could somebody clarify this? I too worry that the nature of the arguments made leans more towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than actually making arguments against the article. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep After re-reading a lot of the comments and earlier arguments, I'm weakly in favor of keeping the article. I share some of Ravenswing's concerns regarding WP:SPORTSEVENT but I'm wondering where the line gets drawn concerning the first bullet "The final series... determining the champion of a top league". WP Footy is already not very receptive towards college soccer and the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I'm not really sure where that somewhere should be. I think it's worth pointing out that since my previous comment three days ago no additional wikipedia policies or guidelines have been linked to dispute the article. I also find it off-putting that Quidster's arguments were not rebutted and were casually ignored, and that the article was initially deleted anyway. We need to do better to come up with a consensus. Jay eyem (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay eyem: I was subconsciously thinking the same thing, and I'm glad someone caught on. It's that type of potentially deliberate ignoring that continues to tempt me that it was a JDL, bad faith nomination, and bad faith deletion. I don't want to take anything away from Raven's comments, which I personally disagree with, but it is unsettling that one fleshed out delete argument is supposedly good enough for a deletion whereas three, perhaps four fleshed out keep arguments are disregarded. Baffles me that others would wonder why I would then be tempted that I feel it's JDL. As far as WP:FOOTY is concerned, I think part of it is they have a general ignorance to the sport of college soccer primarily due to many of them being from outside the U.S. and may not have an understanding, or willingness to understand for that matter, the relevance of collegiate soccer in North America. For now though, I think WP:CSOC is a decent task force to keep that JDL party in check. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguing in the alternative, I propose a Redirect to the page America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament as this is a plausible search term. Jay eyem (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, I got pinged because I commented on this earlier, my opinion is that GNG or not, it seems to fail NSeasons to me. But I am neither for keeping or deleting, because it's college soccer and not professional soccer I tend to stay away from these articles, it's a grey area in wiki-policy. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was pinged as an earlier commentator, and voted to keep, but I also agree that the general coverage is weak. This is partly because of soccer's lower status in the US, and partly because this is not a "Big Five" type conference; correspondingly, members of this conference don't tend to win the NCAA tournament. The majority of the coverage is therefore institutional. Nonetheless, I hope one day we will see an agreed upon policy that any postseason tournament in the following major Division I sports (baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer) with a tournament that automatically sends the champion to the NCAA is notable. With the long tail of knowledge, there will always be an audience for this information, and that's what the encyclopedia is about. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much reinforces why I feel like this was a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, bad faith nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Sources discuss specific games and teams at the tournament, but I'm not seeing a solid RS that covers the tournament itself. If someone can find one, I'd probably jump to a regular keep. But most (all?) the the tournament did see coverage--just very spread out. I think it's not at all clear from our rules. Oh, I think "routine" coverage is basically box scores etc, not high-prose articles in RSes. So I reject that argument at least. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you @Vanamonde93: for re-opening the discussion to see if a consensus can be reached. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm shocked that the article was deleted in the first place, especially when there is one compelling delete argument, by Ravenswing, which feels partially WP:IDONTLIKEIT by their tone. That, and the remaining delete votes are WP:JNN (ahem, Snowman and Sports1234), WP:DIDNOTWIN (because it's a smaller Division I conference) and WP:VAGUEWAVE (nominator) arguments. The keep votes may point to a handful of suspect links, but the Albany Press, BFP, and Baltimore Sun bits show enough notability to meet WP:GNG: they're independent of the athletic website, they recap the tournament, and furthermore, they provide details on the tournament and what is at stake in the tournament. Plus, if we do some routine TopDrawerSoccer.com, CollegeSoccerNews.com, SBI and Soccer America coverage of the sport and conference is enough to also meet WP:SUSTAINED. Cobyan02069 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep— It was deleted without due cause before, and it is more notable now... GWFrog (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm more tempted that the original admin's closure saying he "wasn't impressed" with the sources provided seems like JDL quip. I cannot continue to stress enough that routine coverage is met with these links, which Hobbit describes as websites showing box scores is more than enough to meet routine coverage. What is the admin looking for them to feel compelled to realize it meets GNG/SIGCOV? A freaking Sports Illustrated quadruple-page cover story on the depths of this tournament? Quidster4040 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of keeping it, but in the closing admin's defense, the fact that routine coverage exists is not usually used to support keeping articles but instead to support their deletion. Box scores are a perfect example of routine coverage. We usually like to see more than routine coverage. In this case, I'm basing notability on the tournament's linkage to the NCAA tournament. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. No material content other than stats and match results. Quidster4040 is encouraged to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. HindWiki^Connect 14:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that way, @HindWIKI:? I don't think WP:JNN is good enough. Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I feel universally at this point there is NC (fair points from Quidster and Ravenswung both for and against), if the final call is Keep, that's fine and I wouldn't have any further comment. However, if the consensus manages to swing towards delete, we should instead consider to redirect to America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament, because it's a plausible search term, but perhaps (I say this from an arguendo perspective), not plausible on its own. Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To help reach a conseus, I will consult WP:CSOC members who haven't discussed in this debate, to see what their viewpoint is on this tournament: @GauchoDude:, @Swimmer33:, @US Referee:, @GauchoDude:. Cobyan02069 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobyan02069:-I understood. HindWiki^Connect 03:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I thought for long.And Vanamonde andf Stifle convinces me enough.Winged Blades^Godric 13:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create-protect 2018, 2019 and 2020 titles to save us from another AfD next year and for the following reasons: 1. Generally there is insufficient content and sources for both the Tournament and the season every year 2. The parent article itself has lingering {{onesource}} tag, (^{removed after this comment)}. There's insufficient content to write meaningful article and (in my analysis, even notability concern). 3. The Tournament page has been repeatedly created every year and every year get deleted, it is just not notable: * 2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2012 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; * 2013 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2014 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2015 America East Men's Soccer Tournament *2016 America East Conference men's soccer and now this year 2017. There is also intention for creating it next year as infobox of this has shown. Note that All these past versions where deleted via full AfD not speedy or PROD. In addition, after AfD deletion of the season 2016 America East Conference men's soccer season it was recreated record 3 times until the title was salted to sysop-create only. Even after that it was recreated with varying letter case and later redirected. I believe it is time to save editors' time and indefinitely sysop-proctect creation for at least 3 years to come. I have no doubt nothing will change. Because Notability cannot be created where it exist not.–Ammarpad (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit pointy, don't you think? Quidster4040 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you don't actually understand what WP:POINTY is all about. Nonetheless, you were already given good advice by another user above. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you don't actually understand what WP:POINTY is all about. If you read the details of the policy, you will see that placing the parent article/future events and lumping it with the main article counts as deleting from an important subject. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems to me there is a small number of editors trying to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion without any one presenting sufficient independent sourcing showing non trivial coverage of this tournament as an event in itself. Ammarpad's comments are particularly convincing. Fenix down (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I genuinely am not trying to bludgeon, I'm new to this entire process. To me it feels like everyone assumes that they and everyone else knows how these policies work without linking to them. I just find it odd that those arguing delete haven't directly disputed Quidster's arguments (other than Ravenswing), they haven't answered Quidster's questions, and they haven't linked to any Wikipedia policies that demonstrate that it fails notability guidelines. The nominator made reference to a previous AfD without addressing what actual arguments they want to address from that AfD. Ammarpad and Ravenswing are the only ones to actually link to something, and even there they are essays and not policies or guidelines. ~~What exactly would constitute, as you put it, non-trivial coverage?~~ Totally missed your first comment on the page, my bad. Jay eyem (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG and SIGCOV via Quidster and Templeton. Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but the championship game itself was broadcasted on the ESPN Network family, which, in the U.S., is one of the premier sports coverage networks. That alone should easily meet the notability concerns Raven and Ampad are worried about. Twwalter (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the broadcast of the championship game indicate that the regular season was notable? Fenix down (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rutaba Yaqub

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

doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICIAN. two sources are not Reliable enough to be cited here. Saqib (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've since added a further two obviously reliable sources, which are not simply rehashes of the earlier material. The article in The Express Tribune is non-trivial (she is one of two artists discussed, although in less detail than the first). The second article from Public Radio International is about her reaction to the death of Junaid Jamshed, although the article title doesn't make that obvious. It obvious from the first line of the article however, which reads "Growing up, musician Rutaba Yaqub loved listening to Junaid Jamshed.". So that now makes four obviously reliable sources, although two of those four are about roughly the same thing (just with different details). So three different stories in four reliable sources, which are either websites of print media or public radio broadcasters. Miyagawa (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: I still think in-depth coverage on the subject is missing. also i don't see the subject meeting WP:MUSICBIO. --Saqib (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it meeting the very first criteria "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." There's now three/four references that meet that, which covers the "multiple" part. As for in-depth coverage, that isn't a requirement under Wikipedia:Notability (music). I've had a look, and the only mention of in depth coverage related to notability is for WP:INDEPTH, which is in relation to individual events, not biographies. The requirement there is "multiple", not in-depth. Miyagawa (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Miyagawa makes a good case for her passing MUSICBIO. this source also mentions that she will be released shortly on Patari Aslis. Patari is "Pakistan's largest audio streaming platform." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since no particular notability issues. Unclear why she was nominated. gidonb (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significantly discussed in two independent sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Saqib that the person has not been mentioned in enough independent sources, and the links are quite related, referring to the same details and information. Quantumavik (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "enough". Right now there's four that easily meet the reliable and independent source since they're all print newspapers or international radio organisations. One from The Express Tribune in 2013, two from Public Radio International in 2016 and one from The News International in 2017. Pick a number, and tell me where to find that number in the actual policies. Miyagawa (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just reverted a whole bunch of edits that Saqib made to the article, which removed sources and added unsourced material that hasn't been mentioned anywhere. Miyagawa (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at User_talk:Miyagawa#Rutaba_Yaqub. I expect you to respond. --Saqib (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO with mentions in a number of reliable, international sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does the nominator have connection with the article subject?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; coverage here: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] etc. Mar4d (talk) 09:49, 27 November 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 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Miz and Damien Mizdow

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

This article basically consists of a weekly recap for a six month angle that's sufficiently covered in both wrestlers' individual pages. The subject matter fails the notability criteria, and the article itself is guilty of fan cruft and content forking. Feedback 05:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is actually the second deletion discussion, after an AFD with little participation resulted in it being kept two years ago. Feedback 05:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I voted "Weak keep" two years ago but probably shouldn't have. There's not much here, just two paragraphs about the tag team and another (larger) paragraph about them feuding. Everything useful is already covered in the individual articles. Fails GNG, amongst the other issues Feedback points out.LM2000 (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 10:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete, I'd usually be all up for keeping tag team articles, but this one is super short lived, and is based on them splitting. Note - Even the template they are in as tag team champions lists other articles, and not this one. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:30, 21 November 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 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Causal thinking

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

Part of a walled garden created back in 2011, and materially unchanged since then. Meandering WP:SYNTH made as part of a self-promotion effort. See also the AfDs for Random structure function, Bernoulli stochastics, Bernoulli space, Stochastic thinking, Stochastic prediction procedure, Stochastic measurement procedure, Quantification of randomness, Variability function and Ignorance space. It's less math-y than those, but they're all part of the same package. XOR'easter (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one seems less promotional than the others but that doesn't make its sophomoring maunderings (with citations used for effect rather than for content) any more palatable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:OR and promotion of primary source. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar –Ammarpad (talk) 02:33, 25 November 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 Category:Voice actors. Sandstein 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of voice actors

AfDs for this article:

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

One big unsourced ball of fandom listcruft. It has been tagged as badly sourced since 2010 and has gone through two AfDs in that time, without improvement. There is no useful value to this list (voice actors are commonplace and we have categories to list them). The detail in this list is excessive, as there is negligible sourcing. It certainly has no value beyond listing the actor names, as a category would do better.

I'm prompted to list this because of this edit, a persistent vandal today dumping another similar 3k block of unsourced, unverifiable BLP. Yet it's not actually any worse than what's here already. We can't polish this, so we should flush it. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Voice actors. I know it's cross-categorization, but that's a good way to deal with thousands of entries, and can apply WP:CATDEF as to who is really a voice actor and who just had a bit voice-over role in whatever, the latter of which is pretty much everyone who's been an actor. If you skim through Lists of actors, you'll see a good chunk of them as redirecting to categories. Maintaining a list of "well, what were they in?" is not useful. You get guest voices on the Simpsons from all sorts of celebs, and they're suddenly classified as voice actors? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Voice actors per AngusWOOF. It's cross-namespace, but R2 doesn't cover this type of redirect. While long lists like this can't be controlled as easy, the category can just as well work as additions on the articles in question would need to be sourced anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." Pburka (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List is too broad in scope to be useful, because there are simply too many people who have worked as voice actors, too many editors who think every voice actor who exists gets an automatic notability freebie regardless of their sourceability (further adding a constant ebb and flow of additions and removals), and too many people who get added here on the basis of having once voiced a two-line cameo on The Simpsons without ever having had a regular voice-acting role at all, for this to be a maintainable list. Redirecting to a category is never a useful thing to do with a list title, either — for one thing, voice actors are subcategorized by nationality and gender, so there are exactly zero people filed directly in Category:Voice actors at all. So a person typing this title into the search bar won't actually end up at any actual list. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. The scope of this list is far too broad and too general to be useful. Wikipedia has thousands of biographies of voice actors from different nationalities to be of any use and countless more of regular actors who performed voice roles. —Farix (t | c) 15:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, the categories present make up for the list in a big way. I am neutral on a redirect here as I am unsure if it would be helpful or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 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. Given the obvious copyright violation and the lack of non-copyvio content that would form the basis for an article, deletion per WP:G12 was the only route. This is not to say that a list of podcast episodes such as this one is or isn't notable; that would of course be decided based on the sources in each case. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hello Internet Episodes

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, such as detailed lists of podcast episodes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You cannot delete an episode description page on an "indiscriminate information basis." The episode list is useful for people who want to know a bit about the show without having to leave Wikipedia to find it in the iTunes store or their page, then find the episode description list, then find what they want. It is easy access. Furthermore, on the basis of the previous attempt to do this, the fact it is a talk show doesn't work against it as List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes exists as an episode description page for a talk show. There can't be multiple standards for the pages. If it is off the main page, as not to clutter it, then what exactly is the problem? UnknownM1 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the Podcast page, this was on a rollback because the editor of that page thought that listing the episodes was "messy." Yet this is valid information, compiled in a standard Wikipedia reference form for the purpose. It should be on the primary page Hello_Internet and User:Daniel Rigal should not have reversed it. Theclevertwit (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright infringement of episode list on iTunes. (Tagged)

I do not take kindly to my talk page comments being misrepresented. I did not use the word "messy" in either an edit summary or a talk page comment. What I actually said on the talk page was:

"I removed the list because it seemed to be copied directly from iTunes or from Hello Internet itself. We don't want a lot of content copied from other sources but what we can do is link to it instead."

That was me being nice, pointing out that we can't plagiarise other sources listings in a gentle way and being nice by adding a link to the full episode list under External links. I know that no good deed goes unpunished but I am not taking a trouting for this!

Now, this is me being slightly less nice, but not unreasonably so: The podcast teeters on the edge of being notable enough for an article. It falls just the right side of the line for a single article. It does not justify a stand alone episode list (like a highly notable TV show can do) or a walled garden of additional articles. Copyright issues aside, it does not offer the readers any advantage to look at a list of episodes on Wikipedia instead of on iTunes or HI's own website (which I linked to under External links). The "Tims" can put what they like on their own Wiki (and take the consequences if it turns out to be somebody else's copyright) but Wikipedia is not free web hosting for fansites. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is more of a WP:NOTCATALOGUE breach rather than being an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't matter what counter point is made, this list has a copyright infringement and needs to be deleted, further more, a list of episodes of an internet podcast is certainly not noteworthy nor encyclopedic content.Grapefruit17 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 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 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance space

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

Part of a walled garden of self-promotion, wholly reliant upon primary sources. See also the AfDs for Random structure function, Bernoulli stochastics, Bernoulli space, Stochastic thinking, Stochastic prediction procedure, Stochastic measurement procedure, and Quantification of randomness. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variability function. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google finds nearly 20 hits on this (filtered to include Collani to avoid unrelated things with the same name) but they all appear to be by Collani's associates. With no in-depth sourcing by multiple groups independent of its originator, it fails WP:GNG. Also it appears to be content-free drivel but I guess that's not relevant to our notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clear synthesis of one primary source and this introducing WP:OR in Wikipedia. No other reliable sources discussed this invented concept in this sense –Ammarpad (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the rest, needs independent reliable sources to pass WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:19, 26 November 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 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Pureval

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

A puffery-filled personal bio of a politician who doesn't meet WP:NPOL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel like I've done a decent job of stating facts objectively and without puffery; however, I do concede that I haven't included enough opposing viewpoints, and I'm working to fix that. As for notability, I feel strongly that Pureval meets WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources. Of particular note are the Daily Kos piece ([30]), this coverage in AdAge (I haven't yet added his Aftab/Aflac campaign advertising to the article), and the lengthy Cincinnati profile ([31]). He has also received significant local coverage beyond what is normally expected for the oft-ignored clerk of courts position -- compare the sources available on Google for "aftab pureval" vs those for his predecessor, "tracy winkler". -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clerk of courts at the county level is not a notability criterion that would get a person into Wikipedia under WP:NPOL, but the sourcing here is not making a strong case that he could be considered more notable than the norm. It's an office whose holders would simply be expected to generate some coverage in their county's own local media, so local coverage isn't enough to demonstrate notability by itself — to consider a person at this level of office notable enough for an article, we would require evidence that he was getting nationalized coverage beyond just Cincinnati media alone, thereby making him more notable than most other clerks of courts in most other counties. The fact that he may be more visible within Cincy than his predecessor was isn't the make-or-break condition in and of itself — the determing factor is whether or not his prominence can be shown as significantly wider (i.e. statewide or national) than most other court clerks could claim. But the only evidence of that being shown here is Daily Kos, which is not a notability-supporting source because it's a user-generated activist blog, not a media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I concede; I made a mistake here. I had read WP:NPOL before writing the article, but I hadn't read WP:POLOUTCOMES, so I didn't realize that meeting WP:GNG isn't sufficient for local politicians if the sources are almost entirely local. Mea culpa. (However, I am gonna hang on to a copy of the article, because I think it's pretty likely that he'll become notable in the future). -IagoQnsi (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politicians with this type of office are not in any way default notable and we need non-local coverage to be more than routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 21 November 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 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Paradise

AfDs for this article:

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

Recent AfD and a non-admin closure, but a bit late to simply re-open it.

They're a professor. But do they pass WP:ACADEMIC? I'm seeing neither the extent, nor the sourcing to justify this. This is another bio from a problematic community banned paid editor (KDS4444). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep distinguished chair at a research university. It means he passes PROF, and its been worked on by other editors to try to make it comply with our guidelines. Not a fan of the paid stuff, but Jytdog and others have helped here, so it isn't solely the work of a paid editor or only intended to promote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we're happy to take this on the basis of only a job title and a TV credit? This is supposedly an academic biography, yet there isn't even a publications list. A CV so thin would have a hard time getting a postdoc role, let alone claiming to be NOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of how North American academic ranks work. It means that he does meet the other PROF criteria without having to check. We also just had an RfC on this that confirmed passing PROF establishes notability independent of the GNG, and he clearly passes PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is his "rank"? The infobox claims "Distinguished professor", but the staff list states "University professor". This is an article which might well end up labelled as "notable", but it's also painfully lax. We're not usually so accommodating to our editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, his details are on his university page. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps amazingly, I've already read that. And nowhere does it call him a "Distinguished professor", which is what the infobox claims. Now maybe in Arkansas a "University professor" is something special, but it isn't round here. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A University Professorship is a specific professorship given to academics with the rank of distinguished professor at some North American universities. It is different than simply being a professor at a university. It is a specific title for a highly regarded academic at the institution. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you wrote "A CV so thin would have a hard time getting a postdoc role", so I assumed you hadn't found his page. For "University Professor", see Academic ranks in the United States. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PROF. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Distinguished Professor" generally means someone with well-above-ordinary scholarship, and "University Professor" sometimes means something similar (at my campus it is like Distinguished Professor but even more rarefied). But at Arkansas it seems to mean someone with extraordinary contributions to service rather than to scholarship. So I don't think this is quite what we usually expect in WP:PROF#C5. Instead, in this case, it appears to be evidence of WP:PROF#C7, "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", presumably for his general-audience work on Petra. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a distinguished chair at a notable research university. It means he satisfies PROF. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHE (which is UK) someone with a "distinguished chair" would be titled as holding the "Zoidberg Chair in Psychoceramics" or similar. I can see no such description. Nor can I see "distinguished professor" being used anywhere outside our own infobox. As a BLP, we have to source such things, especially when their notability rests upon them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a " distinguished chair" he certainly passes WP:PROF and the renomination is a bit rushy with the previous AfD resulting in speedy keep barely 30 days ago. — Ammarpad (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C7, per David Eppstein's argument above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Dingley. In the US true holders of "distinguished chairs" hold named chairs. If he does not have a named chair, at least in the US, he does not pass Academic criteria #7.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? "Named chair" means: someone gave money to the school, and you were the best we could find in that subject. "Distinguished professor" or in this cases "University professor" may be more meaningful, because it generally has specific levels of distinction required (that I have linked to above) rather than merely an endowment fund. In addition, "Distinguished professor" is specifically called out as equivalent to named professorships in the relevant WP:PROF criterion (which is not #7). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per the 1st AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 27 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra–Azerbaijan relations

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

No particular claim of notability. Unless all bi-lateral relations are notable, there's no reason to believe this one is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no inherent notability. all there is diplomatic recognition and nothing else. LibStar (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relations between two entities with mutual recognition and notability. Tart (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

simply having recognition does not give inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded the article. Now it has more relevance. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibsStar. Also, what expansion? What there is, is pretty much indistinguishable from a short directory listing. --Calton | Talk 22:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How that what expansion? Look at the previous version, when that article was nominated and now, please. The truth, I do not know why, instead of fixing it, you are making a vote to delete the article. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_138#Articles_on_bi-lateral_relations may be of interest when closing this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The default criterion for inclusion is meeting WP:GNG and this bilateral- relationship doesn't meet it. After similar AfDs like this now there's this attempt to agree on policy or guideline concerning whether countries relationships are automatically notable. But in the meantime that's only proposal, therefore only WP:SIGCOV of their relationship can be used to establish notability. And for this article there is no such sources and the stub is nothing save to show each country know the other exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Azerbaijan and Foreign relations of Andorra, both of which have tables for keeping track of the details of visits that this article now includes. MarginalCost (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar. While I agree that the article has been expanded since then, I don't agree that there's an awful lot more going for it. GNG wasn't met and still isn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand why people create pages as esoteric as this and I certainly don't understand why people obsess and make a hobby of deleting them. This particular one fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know that you could not create esoteric pages. In that case, tell me what I have to create. Super Ψ Dro 14:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee house church

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

Tagged as needing sources for over 7 years. This seems to be a rarely used WP:NEOLOGISM. An (admittedly shallow) search didn't turn up any good sources, although the phrase does appear occasionally. Note that this article isn't about coffeehouses run by churches (a trend in the USA for a while), but about congregations who meet in regular coffeehouses. Pburka (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sources. No evidence provided that the Catholic Church would approve of mass in a non-standard location like this. On the other hand, it makes assertions that having a worship service in a restaurant is inherently different from having one in a standard church building. Considering that the Harlem 1st branch that started meeting in a room in Sylvia's Restaurant of Harlem 20 years ago is the same organization as the Harlem 1st Ward that today meets in a regularly built LDS Chapel, I strongly suspect that the assertions of this article would not be held to be all people.Johen Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might be classified as a dictionary definition. This is a genuine way of conducting mission. It might be transwikified. Whatever the outcome, the list of denominations needs to be removed as largely irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 26 November 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 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Kruchinin

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

Scopus says h-index of 8, well below the threshold for WP:PROF. Editor of two journals that turn out to be predatory. WP:PEACOCK added by the WP:SPAs who are the main substantive contributors. However, Russian, so some of the issues with this awful article might be down to language difficulties. Guy (Help!) 00:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see a way to passing WP:PROF. GS citation counts for his listed publications: 0, 12, 15, 15, 18, 31, 14, 3, 30, 51, 14, 0, 2, 3. Even allowing for the irregularities of what GS sees and what it misses, there's no way this adds up to "influential". The 2010 textbook he coauthored has only 39 citations, and I can't find reviews of it. No evidence of awards or highly selective society fellowships that could indicate professional recognition. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the predatory editorships removed there is no evidence of WP:PROF. This article is puffed up in a particularly eastern-European way, but that's neither here nor there except that it makes any actual notability hard to find among all the noise. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the start is overly promotional and full of unneeded padding. If there was substance this might be overcomeable, but he just does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 25 November 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 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Basic and Applied Physics

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

This article was created by a WP:SPA - in fact, creating this article was their sole edit. Amazingly, they "forgot" to mention that the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory. Not in Thomson ISI, not in JIF, not in DOAJ. Not in any way notable. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose that a fraudulent journal could attain notability by being widely discussed as such, but this is nowhere near that level. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per the same reasoning as WP:FRINGE: Without sources discussing the predatory nature of this journal we have no way to write a properly WP:NPOV article. If we had an article on the publisher we could redirect there, but we don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following articles cite this journal btw: Prime number theorem, Taylor's law Tweedie distribution. It would also be more accurate to say that this was created by the journal's editor (hello massive COI here). In any case, delete.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this article is literally two short sentences, one external link, and a short table to make it appear better. Along with that, the article if you could even call it that, has four major issues tagged at the top which in my opinion constitutes deletion alone. definitely not WP:N and seems to be advertising somewhat, further more this information can all be found on the official website which not surprisingly was the one source for this article.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the nominator's statement that "the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory," here is support for that statement: The publisher listed in the wp article is World Academic Publishing, and that organization is listed as a predatory publisher here and here. -- econterms (talk) 18:44, 22 November 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.

[1] Archibald, Sarah (14 November 2017). "The curious tale of Stephen Lennon's "Charity" partnership". Hope not hate. Retrieved 14 November 2017.

[1]