Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 July	25 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamoussin fouad

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

Non-notable person. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – Non-notable, self-promo, still speedy deleted some hours ago as Hamoussin fouad adan. Crosswiki self-promo. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete the article. There is significant coverage from third-party sources and the attack has been repeatedly referenced by important figures long after the fact--establishing notability. Several commentators here have pointed out that a redirect is clumsy. Consensus as I read it is to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Hurghada attack

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

Another WP:NOTNEWS incident that received a few days of coverage and faded away with no indications of societal impact. Fails WP:GEOSCOPE and falls under WP:ROUTINE media attention as well. Please do not confuse coverage with the 2017 Hurghada attack or passing mentions of this unnotable incident in reports about the 2017 attack as "continued coverage". ~~I would also support a merge to a list like...I don't know this.~~ Gregory has supplied a better redirect option: Terrorism in Egypt.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - If anyone wants to claim this has WP:DIVERSE coverage -- please actually read the part where it says sources shouldn't just mirror each other. I also recommend WP:PRIMARYNEWS which does not consider news reports as secondary sources since they do not have in-depth analysis of the event. I have covered all the bases here; editors I urge you all to do the same. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slick, Note that "mirror" does not apply to reported stories, such as those the 2017 stories in CNN, the NYTimes, that have the byline of a journalist; these are reported stories. "mirror" applies to wire service stories that are picked up by multiple newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Terrorism in Egypt is a far more obvious redirect target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for sourcing And Note that this attack did come back into the new cycle at the time of the 2017 Hurghada attack. It may make sense to tag for better sourcing, particularly for sourcing in German, Swedish and Arabic. In fact, it is my habit when I come upon a brief but plausible article that I lack the time, expertise, or inclination to improve, to tag REIMPROVE, for NOTABILITY, and/or for other specific problems. Also, given the growing problem with Terrorism in Egypt, this attack is part of an important picture that we lose some of by deleting an article that could be improved. I suggest that rushing articles with plausible claims to NOTABILITY to deletion - rather than tagging them for improvement, or, you know, making a good faith effort to improve them - is bad for the project. I have a high regard for WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, I knew you would falsely claim it is "back in the news cycle" because of the latest, completely unrelated attack. I appreciate how you are insinuating I do not have the expertise to improve a "plausible article". Only problem is this isn't a "plausible article" and I made sure of that. I checked the sourcing available, asked the opinion of another editor, reviewed the souring again, and read the related policies before making this decision.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this attack did in fact return to the news the wake of the 2017 Hurghada attack. More sources here: [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, just to make it clear, do you actually consider AfDing a news-type article that has been in mainspace for over a year as "rushing"? Honestly?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I had seen that this attack was in the papers again recently, because I stumbled upon the 2017 Hurghada attack while scanning the news; stories about the 2017 attack referenced this attack. I took material I found while building a basic article on the 2017 Hurghada attack and used it to make a very small improvement to Tourism in Egypt, an ADVERT badly in need of editing. I far prefer to spend my limited editing time on that sort of useful contribution to the project. Somewhere along the way I saw Terrorism in Egypt, (which is a potential redirect target.) My goal here is WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism_in_Egypt#Red_Sea_resort_attacks; the para already present in the suggested target sufficiently covers the subject. It's insufficiently notable for a stand-alone, hence the redirect suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, there is certainly enough coverage to make it notable, and it is one of the 78 attacks listed by Trump as having not had coverage. If Trump is right, that would make it notable, if he is wrong then it is Wiki-notable! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Well that is a non sequitur. If Trump is right then there is a lack of coverage; if he is wrong, you need sources beyond a regular news cycle to show otherwise. I've also seen this list used as a part of several failed rationales because, as you describe it, it is a list of 78 attacks briefly mentioning this one incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Rich Farmbrough, the Trump statement increases notability, as it did atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson, because Trump statement caused the incident to be revisited by news media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to assertions made by Nom, this terrorist attack on a beach resort has now had 3 rounds of international coverage 1.) when it occurred, 2.) when Donald Trump asserted that it had been neglected by the news media, and 3.) when the same resort was hit by the 2017 Hurghada attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that is a total misrepresentation of the sources. Here is what the sources actually are: 1) a brief news cycle 2) A Trump list that passively mentions the attack 3) A completely separate attack that occurred a year, receiving coverage which briefly mentions the existence of the earlier attack. No in-depth coverage and no post-analysis. I'm all for preserving notable information but I'm against deceiving editors by falsely claiming there has been continued coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Al Jazeera's mention of the 2016 attack in the 2017 attack article "A similar attack took place in Hurghada in January 2016 when two attackers armed with a gun, a knife and a suicide belt landed on the beach of a hotel, wounding two foreign tourists, according to security sources." [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, a whole sentence stating the existence of the 2016 attack happening in the same location? Try reading WP:INDEPTH, particularly this: "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing". That article is focused on the 2017 incident. You know what a passing mention is and why it does not count toward significant coverage; I shouldn't have to explain this to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, of course, that notability under WP:NCRIME, " "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", has already been established by coverage at the time of the attack that meets WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE. This little sub-discussion is about whether WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:LASTING have also been met. But Note that all 5 of these indici of notability be met, let alone that each of them be met to the satisfaction of any individual editor or group of editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted because it has no WP:lasting impact and no significant coverage except contemporary news reports. The Donald Trump mention does not count: as many news articles have emphasized, the list was totally arbitrary and wrong. The events on the list either already had significant coverage (which makes their inclusion in the list nonsensical), or some items on the list were so obscure (some involved no injuries or deaths) that nobody covered them.
However irritating these kinds of articles are, they keep getting "kept" or "no consensus", and I don't see any real harm in them existing, so I don't bother !voting anymore. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence handed down in December 2016, I have now expanded article to include verdict, including the life sentence in abstentia given to the Egyptian-born ISIS operative who recruited and incited the 2 attackers. Slick, do you want to reconsider this Nomination?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that every single crime that occurs in a country with at least a marginal court system will have a trial, right? The fact that news agencies are simply doing their job mentioning the outcome is not significant, it's routine.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. This is more than a "crime". It's a terrorist attack. What I think, editor E.M.Gregory is pointing out here is that he's trying to improve the article. What is the difference between the church bombing news articles and these articles on terrorist knife attacks? Why delete this one but not those? the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we have a suitable better article to redirect it to (see talk page) Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt temporarily ... will work ~~with TGS to~~ to create a better page to redirect it to, (for example an article like Terrorism Directed at Egyptian Tourism Industry - Tourists and Monuments) those !@%$#%@ would blow up the pyramids. Imagine being an Egyptian and having to worry each day that your country's tourism will nosedive because some !@%$#%@ is hell-bent on destroying your nation? Anyway, for now Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt is all we got. Please see talk page. (Previous comment: is a slippery slope ~~Firstly, why is 'this article irritating'?~~ Again, I say ~~Keep~~ because Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt would lead to a slippery slope (<--that's a funny phrase) of deleting other similar articles that I would never want to see merged. Exhibit A: this Palm Sunday Church Bombing, at a church in Egypt. I would never want to see this article deleted and it's just like the 2017 Attack in Hurghada. What's the difference? The public outcry? The reactions? So I don't know much about the details you guys are all presenting (even though my English comprehension is very good).. um.. I guess what I'm trying to say is that. Terrorism in Egypt, an ongoing problem since Sadat was murdered, Muslim Brotherhood came into power, then was removed from power, Sinai killings are happening almost daily, other countries have fallen into civil war because of of it-- sorry.. Well. Would we ever delete the other church bombing article, the Botsoseya Church bombing article? Again I don't understand too much about wiki guidelines, rules, policies, etc. I do notice that more people spent time working on the church bombing articles than on the tourist beach attacks, maybe the article could be named "Hurgada attacks" cause another one just happened two weeks ago - http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/middleeast/egypt-hurghada-beach-attack/index.html but should articles that address individual instances of terrorism be kept or deleted? Each instance happens once and is talked about once (Trump talking about it, to me, doesn't constitute a second news cycle). The bigger question is how big does an event have to be to deserve it's own article? It's repercussions? I don't know. KEEP (one of my very first votes on Wikipedia) the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also this does have lasting societal impact - on Egyptian society, and Tourism in Egypt and tourists who had considered going to Egypt. http://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFKBN1AC16J-OZATP the eloquent peasant (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LevelC this is truly one of the better votes I have seen in awhile, even from editors who come to these discussions regularly. I can assure you the Sunday Church bombing would never be considered for deletion, nor anything similar. All of the essential information from this 2016 incident would be merged to terrorism in Egypt so nothing important is actually being lost. Wouldn't you agree Wikipedia is not a news agency and should focus on notability? By the way, the source you provided is about the 2017 incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the eloquent peasant did read the 2017 Reuters source he provided. 1/5 of this source is about the 2016 attack. It reads: "The incident was the first significant attack on foreign visitors since a similar assault on the same resort more than a year ago, and came as Egypt struggles to revive a tourism industry hurt by security threats and years of political upheaval."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, WP:BLUDGEON, bludgeon, bludgeon. But thank you for literally asserting the fact it was referring to the mainly to the 2017 incident. That brief paragraph does not connect the struggles to revive tourism directly to the 2016 attack at all; it simply mentions that another attack in the same location occurred a year ago.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: This news article from The Independent does connect the 2016 Knife Attack to the "struggles to revive tourism". Regards, the eloquent peasant (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the eloquent peasant a brief mention in an article does not constitute as significant post-analysis nor does it weigh how much this incident affected tourism. It merely notes it was tragic but tragedy does not equal notability on Wikipedia. Notice how the writer called the plane crash "high-profile"? That is the kind of article that deserves a standalone page. That incident is covered significantly for its impact -- not just bundled like in the Independent article you found; this 2016 attack has not been. Exactly why it needs to be redirected to terror in Egypt. Unfortunately, it appears XavierItzm's inaccurate and policy-less vote swayed you away from your previous, more thoughtful, decision.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my stupidity but what does Oi, bludgeon, bludgeon mean (because you're both doing it)? There are a lot of news articles that talk about how terrorism affects tourism in Egypt. So whatever, the problem is - it's that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Ok. I agree with that. But how do we decide an Event has societal impact... We'd need some time to see // and data analysis to see how this event affected Tourism in Egypt? Keep do not redirect. Have a nice day everyone. Good-bye. I'm hungry. It's supa time. (note to self- so that's what it's like 'participating in a discussion!) the eloquent peasant (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: -- The graceful slick, the eloquent peasant -?? Did you notice the similarities? hm? Thanks for the compliment, before. I think there's no right or wrong answer here. I'm pondering this "events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". Maybe it wasn't this knife attack that had (or will have) a demonstrable long-term effect on Egyptian Tourism. Maybe it was the revolution. 90 million people + 1 million more every six months- that's a big group of people. But that 1 event? Wikipedia is not a newspaper! I worked at a newspaper. Oh. No wonder I don't get involved in discussions. It's difficult. the eloquent peasant (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged (still "Redirect") even in light of HEYMAN. For example, the "Impact" section consists of one sentence:

"Due to this and other attacks, 2016 was a "tough year" for the tourism industry in Egypt.[14]"

This is already covered within the larger article Terrorism_in_Egypt#Red_Sea_resort_attacks. Insufficient lasting societal impact as a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Guys, we have WP:RS (already included on the entry) citing this attack as one of the reasons why tourists in Egypt went from 15 million to 5 million. In a major country which largely depends on tourism. If people are going to consider events such as this as insignificant... well, then maybe about 1/2 of the Wikipedia should be deleted because it's hard to understand what events could possibly be more significant than events such as this. Not to mention that this was an ISIS attack by a (now convicted) operative of the Islamic State, Ahmad Abdel Salam Mansour. Again, if individual ISIS attacks were to all of the sudden be considered moot and not worthy of Wikipedia, then there is a very long list of other ISIS knife attacks to be deleted! It seems to me deleting this one only would be a mark of bias. XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous puffery: Guys, we have WP:RS (already included on the entry) citing this attack as one of the reasons why tourists in Egypt went from 15 million to 5 million. The quoted source actually says: Before the 2011 uprising, nearly 15 million tourists visited Egypt a year. In 2016, the number totalled just 5.3 million, according to chairman of Egypt's Tourism Authority, Hicham al-Demairi.

The sentence in the article is blatant WP:OR as well: the Independent article does not say that 2016 was a "tough year" because of this attack. Indeed, the news article says: Although the country has been troubled, most of the popular tourist spots have remained largely undisturbed and are not listed as off-limits by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Indeed, the same newspaper actually published an article (linked in the source listed) in August 2016 by their travel correspondent, actually recommending Hurghada.

Please do not puff up the importance of the terrorist attack. If the attack was important, one can defend it at AfD without making up stuff. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Independent" article says " In January 2016 a knife attack at the Bella Vista hotel in Hurghada injured three foreign visitors. Just this Easter, two bombs went off on Palm Sunday, killing 45 Coptic Christians. Incidents like these are both tragic on an individual and community level, and devastating on a national one,..." Egypt, which is a country that depends on tourism saw tourism nosedive during the revolution. Once the country's government began to stabilize and tourism began picking up, terrorists began targeting tourism sites. (and it didn't stop and it continues and I think it's very important. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/11/world/middleeast/10egyptattacks_listy.html the eloquent peasant (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this AFD is part of a recent series of terrorism-related AFDs in which Nom attempts to change the usual outcome of articles about terrorist attacks. For at least several years, terrorist attacks have been judged notable underWP:NCRIME, when they meet WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE, and if borught to AFD a year or so later, kept if there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING. Here, on her talk page, GSlick, persuades a fellow editor that this is the usual outcome [3]. Obviously, Slick and I have differ. But editors coming to this page should know that this is part of a campaign to shift the usual outcome in a category of topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Slick, 3 of the 4 articles now at AfD#Terrorism related are your nominaitons. And one of those, 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson, was Kept at AfD earlier this month.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False premise Editors arguing that merging this article to Terrorism in Egypt or to a list are basing their argument on a false premise, an unrealistic assertion that the information will thereby be WP:PRESERVED. There is no guarantee that merged information will continue to be kept in an article, rather, it can be changed or removed at any time. It is common for lists and articles to be tightened by removing mention of relevant but non-bluelinked incidents as a list or topic grows. redirecting is not a certain means to PRESERVE useful information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M. Gregory if you are going to continue to WP:BLUDGEON numerous AfDs, I will report you to ANI. Seriously, this is ridiculous and it disrupts any attempt of having a fruitful discussion. A "campaign" to shift the usual outcome? If the usual outcome neglects policy like you do, than I'd happily be a part of that change.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beware WP:BOOMERANG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Level C:. You may be unaware that it is verboten to return and change a comment on a talk page without marking the material as new. (i refer to yuredit above " Imagine being an Egyptian and having to worry each day that your country's tourism will nosedive because some !@%$#%@ is hell-bent on destroying your nation? Anyway, for now Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt is all we got. Please see talk page. (Previous comment: is a slippery slope)"[4]. You may want to review the rules on this. But to respond, what you say is true, tourism has fallen in Paris and in Israel after terrorist attacks. It also falls after other types of crime waves, epidemics, changes of government, and, well, for lots of reasons. It is not an argument for redirecting an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know (sigh). I always do that and I know I'm not supposed to. I've been doing it for years on internet sites. I won't do it anymore. Peace the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered in numerous reliable sources, including TV coverage by CNN. I know it's a chicken and egg argument, but every post-2010 attack in Terrorism in Egypt has its own article. And there's too much detail to add everything - attack, arrest, trial - to that article without it eventually becoming too cumbersome. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Tarnoff

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

Very short, unsourced BLP with the only claim to significance being one book. Also the article was created by someone called Tina tarnoff who I think is almost certainly closely related to the person in question. BangJan1999 22:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very little evidence from news sources which indicates significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as an unsourced BLP. We shouldn't prejudice against re-creation if good sources for notability can be found. A Train^talk 17:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Wallis

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

Sheer puffery, fails WP:BIO. Appears self-created. Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - borderline fail of our notability criteria for people, in addition to the advertising mentioned above. If somebody could clean it up and introduce more evidence of notability, I'd be willing to change my !vote. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, full of puffery and needs a fundamental rewrite to be considered encyclopedic. DrStrauss talk 08:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:52, 1 August 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 subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's general guideline for notability. Consensus is to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Cotts

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

Fails WP:BIO. Frankly this should be speedied but it's been around for a while. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article contains no information which establishes that the subject meets the minimal expectations described at WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPERSON. DrStrauss talk 08:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG fail. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:53, 1 August 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. Salting I'll leave to the folks at the SPI Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Prakash (singer)

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

WP:BLP of a musician and film director, which makes no actual claim of notability that would pass our inclusion standards for either musicians or film directors -- as written, this just states that he exists and sources the fact only to IMDb, another IMDb-like directory of films and discogs.com. None of these are reliable or notability-conferring sources, but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media being shown at all. In reality, I would ordinarily have speedied this — it's that bad — but this is the third recreation after it's already been speedied twice before, so escalating it to AFD was necessary and I think so's a dose of WP:SALT. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt per nomination. Bearcat I appreciate if you can compare this with previously deleted article Jai Prakash (musician), Jai Prakash Music and JaiPrakash to see any similarities before I go with the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jai Prakash Music. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not identical in form to any of those, but then again they're not identical in form to each other either. The substance of the article is the same, however — it's still claiming primary sourced "notability just because he exists", rather than actually making a firm or reliably sourced notability claim — so I'd go ahead with listing the creator for sockcheck. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the check, I just found they also tried to hijack Jai Prakash too. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I note that you haven't done so yet, I've gone ahead and listed the creator (and the two SPA usernames involved in the prior speedies here) for sockcheck. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, actually I was looking into another SPI and was busy in comparing similarities and differences. Thank you for saving my time. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete article created by a sock, see results of the SPI Sro23 (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject has not been the subject of significant third-party coverage. The most significant third-party source in the article (Huffington Post) can no longer be found. The other sources are not reliable in general. Consensus is to delete with no prejudice to be recreated if this artist receives attention later. Malinaccier (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kukunis

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose only stated claim of notability is having a hit on iTunes and Spotify. This does not constitute an WP:NMUSIC pass in and of itself -- a song has to hit the Billboard charts to be a "hit" for the purposes of NMUSIC, not the iTunes or Spotify charts -- but the only other claim here is that a publication called him an "artist to watch", and while there are a couple of acceptable reliable sources here most of the references are either unreliable or blurby. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can write more than three sentences about him and source them better than this, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 08:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' GNG comes up so empty I checked against NMusician, same story there as well. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Iota Kappa

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

Local Fraternity, no references and no claim of notability. Naraht (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlikely to meet any notability threshold. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NORG. DrStrauss talk 08:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for news or other coverage on google reveals next to nothing. Does not appear to be of note--therefore not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 17:11, 1 August 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 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth G. Bostock

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

WP:BLP of a writer and artist, which makes no claim to passing our notability standards for writers or artists, and cites no reliable source coverage about him in media to support anything. After stating that he exists, it just bulletpoints two résumé sections listing his work, while not providing actual notability claims for any of it, and the referencing consists of three primary sources and a blog entry. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can show stronger evidence of notability and better sourcing for it, but nothing in this version as written is enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Notability not established, and a quick Google search leads nowhere. Unable to establish notability. MX (✉ • ✎) 23:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found few reliable sources that convey any notability. DrStrauss talk 08:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Odenbeck

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As noted, notability is not contingent on the sources being in English Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong You Jeong

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

I didn't find any reliable English sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources do not have to be in English. There are plenty of reliable sources cited in the article so it passes WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Antonioatrylia. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When there are no sources in English, I expect that article on Korean appears first. Also, I'd like some Korean speakers to look at the article and help with establishing a notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources in English. Also, I'm a Korean speaker and I find it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelMisspelled (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above, reputable sources in any language are acceptable. And as far as I know, there is no stipulation as to which language an article would be written in first. 1-555-confide (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, the sources do not have to be in English, but they do have to be reliable. Is anyone vouching for the editorial credibility (or reputation for accuracy) of these non-English sites?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 20:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Dynamite

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

After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, I can find no sourcing in independent, reliable sourcing for this team. All the content out there appears to be promotional, and it doesn't appear that professional online chess has reached the level where such teams gain significant coverage. This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to only be here for promotional reasons and does not have any references linked. Obviously not notable for being a wikipedia article. User:Willhire (talk) -- 1:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Among the sources presented as references I do not see any meeting WP:RS or establishing any standard of WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Kiernan

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

Not notable priest. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most significant position he held was vicar general of the Archdiocese of Atlanta. If he had been named an auxiliary bishop (which that post gets on occasion), he would most probably meet our inclusion criteria. He was never consecrated a bishop, however, so we need to assess the other sourcing more in depth. The other awards are your typical local stuff. Receiving the honourary title of monsignor is no big deal (some dioceses hand it out like candy once you reach a certain age). Sourcing is run of the mill that most priests of retirement age get: they're beloved local figures so they get ordination jubilee coverage, etc. All of that adds up to him being a beloved local priest, which do not meet our inclusion requirements of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there are no other comments, would an admin consider closing this as soft delete? This is a local guy in Atlanta who doesn't have broader societal impact and is unlikely to be historically significant within that archdiocese. We typically don't keep Catholic clerics who are not bishops unless it has been shown that they receive more coverage than would be typically expected for a run-of-the-mill priest, which hasn't been demonstrated here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough significant coverage to justify deletion. DrStrauss talk 08:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TonyBallioni - someone known in a local area only doesn't merit their own wiki page. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tony. I can find many others sharing the same name as the Subject, but GNG is not enough for this clergyman. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hennigan

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

WP:TOOSOON. Only notable role was as Gol D. Roger who is a flashback and not really active character in One Piece. Other roles in which he has lead parts are on shows that haven't appeared on any major television channels, only direct-to-video and Funimation broadcast dubs. No secondary sources besides cast announcements. No notable appearances at anime conventions. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one could be close on WP:ENT, lots of IMDB roles, but how significant is questionable. Found two mentions of him as a student [6][7]. Esw01407 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those help in supporting that he has had bit and guest roles in major television shows, but doesn't show he has had significant roles in significant productions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, without prejudice against draftifying or recreation in the future - Sadly, I couldn't find enough significant coverage about him, with the two sources mentioned by Esw01407 essentially being all there is. Had they been made while he was an actor instead of when he was a student, this would have been an easy keep. He has had some main roles but consensus as of late is that WP:ENT isn't really enough anymore to establish notability. He seems to have more roles as a TV voice actor and actor, interestingly enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 20:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Nybo

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a person with no clear notability claim per WP:NPOL; as near as I can suss from how badly the article is written, he's been a political organizer and an as yet non-winning candidate in a future city council election, but has held no political office. The sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG for anything, either -- there are two primary sources, two YouTube videos, one source which tangentially verifies the existence of a company named in the article but fails to contain Nybo's name in conjunction with it, and one source which namechecks Nybo in the context of being a local football coach rather than in the context of anything political. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the subject edited the article himself just 16 minutes after it was created (and how else could he have known it was here that quickly, but for the article being created by a friend or associate of his?) There's simply nothing here, neither in the substance nor the sourcing, that counts as notability for Wikipedia purposes. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything nom said. Plus the fact that the article reads like it was written by his a couple of his buddies on somebody's laptop one night in a bar after a few rounds of Tuborg.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 20:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is of extremely poor quality, and there's no clear claim of notability. I'm not convinced the article even discusses a single person. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very poor quality article. No evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to South Vermillion High School. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 12:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Vermillion Wildcat football

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

Not notable high school football program. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its roots date back to 1916 and the founding of indiana highschool football

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Vermillion High School. If there isn't a guideline against this level of detail regarding high school sports teams, there should be one. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. It's possible for high school football programs to achieve notability, but not often. I'm not seeing a reason to make this another exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school. Easy call. Carrite (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Vermillion High School.Puffsburg (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Russian roulette#Notable incidents. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths by Russian roulette

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

Challenged Blank and redirect. List content is almost all non-notable, and there is no clear criteria for inclusion. It also mirrors Russian roulette#Notable incidents. Mdann52 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. The Holy Spirit of Coke (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. If nothing it notable enough to be merged, then this may as well be changed into be a redirect. Bensci54 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep or not sure I could agree with a merge and redirect but am not ready to agree to blank and redirect or deletion. Wikipedia readers love information about death as evidenced in the fact that "list of deaths" by year is always a top-10 Wikipedia article by popularity. At Category:Lists of people by cause of death we have lots of articles which are lists of people dying in various ways, and most of those lists are cited instances of people dying in some odd way without also including any journalism or research overview of the phenomena of death in this manner. There could be a list article for this subject because between this article and the main article we have about 10 citations. This information is probably undue for the main article and I see no reason why it should not be forked here where people can add future cases with citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Russian roulette. An interesting case. We would surely reject articles about any of these individual mentions as WP:NOTNEWS, but do they merit mentions in another article? I'm inclined to agree with User:Bluerasberry that these are probably too trivial to mention in Russian roulette, but I would challenge the idea that it's worth a standalone article just because folks would want to see it. By that logic there would be a lot more articles about individual Pokemons, porn stars, etc. A Train^talk 18:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Train You make a good comparison with pokemon and I had that in mind also. I am not sure if you are aware of Wikipedia:Pokémon test but I think that applies here. There are 700+ pokemon and Wikipedia lists them all in various articles at List of Pokémon. Discussion around pokemon established the idea that Wikipedia can feature lists of items which individually are non-notable. I do not think that these individual deaths should have their own articles, but putting all deaths in one list article aside from the main article seems fine to me. Consider for comparison List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. Those also get managed based on the Pokemon precedent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry, I do indeed remember the great debate around Pokemon articles -- I was one of the editors arguing against individual articles for them back in the day. I would argue that there's a fundamental difference here between police shootings and Russian roulette deaths. Police shootings are in themselves an important social phenomenon and a lot of ink is spilled discussing them -- which makes for an encyclopedic topic. Russian roulette deaths are a (ghoulish) curiousity, and fairly rare at that. If we could find some articles that talk about the social impact of Russian roulette deaths (as we could about police shootings and Pokemon), then I'd change my tune. A Train^talk 18:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Train I think that is a fair counterpoint and will say that I am not sure how important Russian roulette deaths are to log. Police shootings are more important. Russian roulette at least is a notable topic, so it merits an article more than some method which is not notable. I can agree that having sociological papers would contribute to establishing notability and that we do not have those. So far as I know this concept is more of a plot device in fiction than anything else. I still say "keep" but you have good points which prevent me from being totally convinced that my position is correct. I think that deletion is justifiable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated the thought-provoking discussion, Bluerasberry. Cheers, A Train^talk 19:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deaths are not individually notable, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether a single article with a list of such deaths is notable. We can have notable lists of non-notable things when the general topic is notable but individual items too trivial for their own articles, and, like the Pokémon, that seems to be the case here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we do end up keeping this article, could I suggest moving it to List of deaths by Russian roulette? A Train^talk 20:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, yes. Smartyllama (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact none of the events or people are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Clear content fork. DrStrauss talk 08:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zabt Shuda Nazmein

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

Not notable self made topic. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No opinion on the deletion (other than sources are likely to not be in English), but I've declined the speedy deletion request based on this. It appears to be a real book, or at the very least, not obviously made up.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of sources doesn't help its already flimsy notability per WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 08:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Online searches are only providing passing mentions, such as [8]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 2 August 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. All uninvolved editors supported deleting the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarack, An Institute for Community Engagement

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

I am not sure that this meets WP:GNG. Everything I find by Googling does not appear to be independent sources. Only one such source was provided and its title suggests that it is not on the organization itself. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to have our Wikipedia page up and running. What steps do you recommend we take in order to ensure our account doesn't get deleted? Connor - 9:50, 25 July 2017

@Connortamarack: The answer is, not much. Firstly, I notice you write with "we" and "our". Wikipedia accounts are required to be used by individuals on behalf of themselves, not groups. Secondly, your account will never be deleted; only the article is being considered for deletion. Thirdly, having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for more information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Blatant advertising and COI. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this wikipedia page does not do justice to the Tamarack Institute. The Tamarack Institute won a UN award for their work in 2014. ^[1]^[2]. Yes it is true that the news articles that are related to this award are no longer on site. An issue with a organization in a small media market. It is also a core contributor to the CENTRE FOR PEACE ADVANCEMENT at the University of Waterloo ^[3]. It is apart of the centre along with christian peacemaker teams .

Tamarack has created a "Vibrant Communities: Cities Reducing Poverty" network of more than 100 municipalities across Canada working to reduce poverty for over a million individuals. Here is a list of some of the members

City of Edmonton
City of Grande Prairie
City of London
City of Medicine Hat
City of Moncton
City of Ottawa
City of Peterborough
City of Toronto
City of Windsor
City of Hamilton
District of Stewart
Niagara Region
Peel Region

Tamarack also has Engage! which is an award winning e-magazine ^[4]

Tamarack is also working to create stronger communities including places like Grey county and bruce county, which are referred to as Grey Bruce as many of their programs are in both counties, and delburne ^[5].

- It is an important Non Governmental Organization in the Kitchener Waterloo Region and in Social Planning across Canada. The question was asked how to make the page last, or removed from deletion. Sure the question could have been worded differently, but there should be an education process rather than just stating it is advertising. There are many aspects to this organization that are not on the wiki page.

References

There is actually a lot that could be done to make this wikipedia page represent what work they are doing. Just cause the original wikipedia page writer is not up on how to make a good wiki page does not mean that it should be deleted @Jasper Deng:

- @65.93.177.106: These do not meet the requirements of being reliable, independent, and significant (particularly the two boldened ones) that WP:GNG dictates for inclusion on Wikipedia. To be more explicit, we can't use a source from the organization itself to establish notability (even though we can use it to verify some statements in the article, see WP:PRIMARY), and a source on a significant person in the organization is not the same as a source on the organization itself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that I had to log in for my input to matter more. I do realize that you need independent and significant. So I have found some additional sources that are hopefully up to your standards

Since 2002, the Tamarack Institute has been guiding Canada’s approach to fighting poverty through the Vibrant Communities initiative in a dozen Canadian cities. The Tamarack Institute refers to their strategic action frameworks as “frameworksfor-change,” and cogently describes their value as follows: “A strong framework for change, based on strong research and input from local players, shapes the strategic thinking of the group, helps them make tough choices about where to spend their time and energy, and guides their efforts at monitoring and evaluating their work. Ask anyone involved in the effort about where they are going and their road map for getting there, and they will tell you. ^[1] That quote is from a paper Channeling Change:called Making Collective Impact Work By Fay Hanleybrown, John Kania, & Mark Kramer published by Stanford University.

Biosphere Reserves in Canada: Exploring ideals and experience ^[2] by Sally Lerner is a retired Associate Professor who at the time held an Adjunct position in the Department of Environment and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo. Printed in ENVIRONMENTS a journal of interdisciplinary studies connected to the University of Toronto. The article discusses how the best practices developed by Tamarack can be adapted into use for building and protecting Biosphere Reserves. The discussion is on page 92-93

An Article written for the Horizon Policy Research Institute^[3] Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Promising Directions for “Wicked” Problems? by Bob Gardner uses the research and work that the Tamarack Institute does to find solutions to social problems. "In May 2010, Tamarack - An Institute for Community Engagement and the J.W. McConnell family Foundation jointly sponsored a Strategic Dialogue to consider these kinds of questions, in relation to their Vibrant Communities and other comprehensive collaborative community initiatives directed towards poverty reduction. This article is based upon background research commissioned for this conference.1" ^[4]

There was a international study on 'knowledge to action' (KTA) done in relation to chronic diseases and public health. In their student of global work in KTA they focused on the work of the Tamarack Institute and Vibrant Communities Initiative. See: Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2015 May; 35(3): 47–53.^[5]

Here are additional news articles about their work CBC Article about their work with homelessness in the Kitchener Waterloo Area^[6] Rockford_Register_Star About their work in Rockford to create meaning full changes in Rockford, by the newspaper's editorial board ^[7] Two stories about their work in The_Hamilton_Spectator , one where Maple Leaf Foods CEO is presenting at their conference ^[8]

Another where the mayor of Hamilton is inviting Tamarack to hold their conference in Hamilton because of what was inspired from previous years ^[9].

Story about their work in Prince George ^[10]. Another story about poverty reduction projects in Sault_Ste._Marie,_Ontario ^[11]

True I did use a lot of 'inside' sources the last time. I hope that these sources are reliable, independent, and significant enough

"least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." - there is a sources from the US Government and Canadian Government sponsored research. The universities of Stanford University, University of Waterloo, and University of Toronto. News Articles about their work in Illinois, Hamilton, Kitchener/Waterloo and Sault Ste Marie in Ontario, Prince George in British Columbia.

I believe the issue started when one person noticed the wiki page could be improved but did not know what steps to take. Sorry forgot to sign it. Abutisechaba (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Unfortunately, this is still insufficient. The first two articles (the PDF's) are not more than passing mention, and do not count as "significant". Only two of the articles you linked are on the institute itself and overall this does not qualify as "significant".--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatantly promotional, wholly unencyclopedic. DrStrauss talk 08:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went through each of the sources like Jasper Deng did and have to come to the same conclusion. Before I write an article, I ask myself if independent reliable coverage provides enough information with which to build the narrative. Any experienced editor should be able to extract enough meat so as to not have to go to the entity's website for anything except the address, if even that. There's very little history to be found in the sources I could find and those above, except for a mention of its founding year. I don't know who the founder is even - maybe I missed it but it should be easier to find. The majority of the media coverage seems to be about a few hosted Institute initiatives, i.e. their work fighting poverty, but there's not enough in my opinion to pass the general notability threshold WP:GNG. I recommend you wait for more media coverage, including more in-depth profiles, and reach out to an experienced editor who has done similar articles. Also, Tamarack Institute should be the title - I think the current title is too promotional. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:33, 2 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CYN (singer)

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC and lacks adequate reliable source support. Getting signed to a label is not an automatic NMUSIC pass in and of itself — being signed to a label counts toward notability under NMUSIC #5, in which two full albums have to be released on the label, but so far all she's got is one single that just came out ten days ago and thus can't be sourced as meeting NMUSIC #2 yet either. One of the two footnotes, further, is her own self-published website, which is not support for notability -- and while the other reference is an article that's surprisingly longer and more detailed than I was expecting, and thus counts for something, it doesn't count for enough by itself as we require multiple reliable sources to pass NMUSIC #1. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger claim of notability and better sourcing for it, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete CYN! She's an up and coming artist whose debut EP is expected before the end of this year. She has multiple stories published of her, including in Billboard twice, once here and another here, The Fader and The Chicago Tribune. I think she deserves to remain on Wiki as more and more people will be seeking information on her and her debut single, Together, which is already making gains in popularity. Update: I have filled in more information on CYN's page. There are now 4 published sources referenced in her article.

Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which someone gets an article for being an "up and coming artist whose debut EP is expected before the end of this year" — we're an encyclopedia, on which somebody gets an article for having already released two full albums, having already had a Top 40 hit, or some other marker which suggests that they've already arrived. Making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about publicity, I'm not this girl's publicist - and don't misuse my quote, I was explaining to you that she is relevant. In any case, before it was about sources, and now it's about your marker of whether or not a pop singer has "arrived". Billboard, the music industry standard, has recognized CYN twice, in two different articles by two different writers. And I would argue that having one of the world's biggest pop stars recognize her talent, sign her to their label, and promote her song is a marker that she has arrived. Besides, her name is on other articles, so why wouldn't you want to make Wikipedia more cohesive and have her name be linked to an actual page? CYN should to stay.

Having a little bit of media coverage doesn't assist notability all by itself, if it doesn't support that she's accomplished anything that constitutes a pass of a notability criterion. A musician needs to satisfy both conditions, not just one or the other, to qualify for an article on here — if you're aiming for "she's notable just because media coverage exists", then she needs quite a lot more media coverage than just a couple of articles, because many musicians who've accomplished nothing that passes a notability criterion could still show two or three pieces of media coverage from somewhere.

And no, merely signing to a label — regardless of whether that label is owned by a major pop star or not — is not an NMUSIC criterion in and of itself: as I already noted, being signed to a label isn't a notability claim in and of itself until there are two full albums out on the market. It's still possible for a musician to get an article with less than two albums if she passes another NMUSIC criterion instead, but she still has to actually pass an NMUSIC criterion and is not exempted from that just because the article has a couple of sources in it that are covering her only in the context of "emerging up and comer that we just saw a press release about" rather than "person who has had a hit single" or "person who has released albums". Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:TOOSOON. If the debut single gets enough popularity to appear on any notable charts this may change, but the promotional campaign isn't sufficient coverage for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comment that this is WP: TOOSOON. But it is a weak delete because the subject is getting coverage in some fairly heavy-hitting sources, bearing in mind any artist with the promotional muscle of a Katy Perry connection is going to get the obligatory column inches. But user Bearcat is making persuasive observations. Despite the hype, it is equally possible this artist may fail in her aspirations and have little accomplishment other than mere existence. As I write this her debut single has been out almost 2 weeks, and there is yet to be any indication of how to measure its success (e.g. Chart activity; Sales numbers; non-promotional third party reportage, etc.) It needs more time. Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTALBALL. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. The media hype may not be long-lasting enough to pass WP:NMUS. DrStrauss talk 08:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Leigh Jones

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

I am creating this AfD on behalf of Truthwillsetyoufree123, who appears to be the subject of this article that is also requesting some properly sourced information be removed.

"Please delete page unless you will add in the unbiased information as added on the talk page. Also, the portion on Victor Scarano is not something that can be used on this wikipedia. Please see evidence on talk page. Furthermore, the EEOC did not say what the page says that it determined. The determination letter was also posted.

Please revert changes to reflect accuracy as represented by myself or delete immediately." jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) (for Truthwillsetyoufree123) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is not a deletion rationale. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant news coverage from reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete:

The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful; The neutrality of the material is in question; One or more external links are in question; It is all based on nepotism on behalf of KBR Articles are misquoted to favor KBR It is highly biased against Jamie Leigh Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) — Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Speedy Delete~~ this is NOT a biography. It is a biased article against Jamie Leigh Jones. This article is prejudice in favor of KBR. Please delete immediately. You can add whatever you want in favor of KBR on KBR's wikipedia page but not on a "biography" of a living person. This biography doesn't include anything in favor of Jamie Leigh Jones and she did do a significant amount of positive things in her life. It must be removed. Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC) — Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strike bolded Speedy Delete, you can make all the comments you want but you only get to give your recommendation once. ~ GB fan 02:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dentacoin

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. The only sources I can find are self-published, promotional postings and a blog that seems to be promotional as well. ... discospinster _talk 17:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG at the moment. I can find no significant mentions of the subject outside of press releases or article written by affiliated parties. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely promotional as a topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Promotional, yes. Likely to succeed, no. But that's a value judgement. Keep the article for six months. See if it gets more than two customers. If not, delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadow (talk • contribs) 15:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: @Rhadow: two customers?! If that was the criteria for inclusion for companies Wikipedia would have at least a million more articles. DrStrauss talk 08:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Articles should be judged on their credibility now and not whether they could be an article next year. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Susan Bezner and Jack Bezner

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

Per WP:MURDEROF and failing WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. This double murder got local coverage, but does not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Added more sources and is thus in compliance of WP:GNG. Can't see how it fails WP:MURDEROF. The Holy Spirit of Coke (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC) banned user.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per The Holy Spirit of Coke. PsychoticInq (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)strike sock Mdann52 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIME because coverage was confined to region where it happened, coverage was limited presumably because this was a family related murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Växjö Arsons

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. Seems to be a fairly-routine crime spree with no real notable events or consequences. Mdann52 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + it's likely not even a crime spree. What ties the fires together is the city and year, nothing else. Sjö (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A series of minor events tied together by nothing but geography. If this is a spree indeed, then that needs to be verifiable. /Julle (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some new commentary deems proof of a notable main event pertaining to this crime spree. The Selective Composition (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per consistent and persistant coverage since. Per WP:GNG. Clearly notable beyone ONEEVENT.BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NCRIME. There's nothing more than run-of-the-mill coverage. DrStrauss talk 08:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Estemar stabbing spree

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

Seemingly WP:BLP1E - short of routine coverage around the event, appears to not meet WP:GNG Mdann52 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:LASTING effect. WP:NOTNEWS. Not particularly remarkable. Sjö (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No seemingly WP:BLP1E if moved to 2013 Varberg stabbing spree content. I have requested a move+done a bit editing. Does meet WP:GNG. PsychoticInquisition (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to not meet WP:GNG In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PsychoticInq. The Holy Spirit of Coke (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)struck sock Mdann52 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CRIME.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable per WP:CRIME or WP:EVENT. The existing sources are fairly weak (tabloid/yellow press) - the event was also reported in more reputable sources at the time, but again, there are no lasting effects. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have an article on WP:Swedish, horrible crime, mentally ill perp, coverage seems to have been limited to Sweden and brief, with the exception of small amount of discussion/contoversy about the type of bullet used by police (some sort of bullet that the military is asserted not to use because it expands.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:PsychoticInq, feel free to ping me if you, as article creator,, see something that I and others have missed, something that would have garnered the sort of attention in academia, the press, or elsewhere to meet WP:NCRIME. You would have to make such an argument with sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little that makes this stand apart from thousands of other unfortunate murders. /Julle (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCRIME. Nothing which stands out from the rest as Julle says. DrStrauss talk 08:59, 1 August 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) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knife-wielding Bank Robbers

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

WP:LISTCRUFT - seemingly a few non-notable crimes put together in one page. Mdann52 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PRODed this when it was first posted about a single robber, other incidents of robberies with a knife were added to make it seem more credible. I left it for a bit to see if it would be fleshed out but it hasn't. There's nothing inherently significant in robbing a bank with a common weapon, none of the crimes or perpetrators are notable in & of themselves (per WP:PERPETRATOR as I cited in the PROD), and throwing a bunch of non-notable things together doesn't make them notable. If this was a mass spree of huge wave of similar crimes, I could see it... but this ain't that. JamesG5 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A knife is a common weapon and didn't just become recently used in bank robberies. All of these stories are local news and PsychoticInq's 'names' for the accused are lazy. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple LISTCRUFT: Nothing happened majorly. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 20:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Started working on the article again with one more instance included. I am fully awared that the aforementioned weapon is widely used but this article was thought of to include notable robbers of knife-wielding - and as that a none-common weapon is a meat cleaver or bread knife accordingly. Perhaps it needs more work to include only really significant instances. PsychoticInclusion (talk)
Delete - as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coatrack of unrelated incidents, connected only by trivia. Carrite (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A collection of news reports, none of the events or perpetrators are notable, is exactly what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my previous statement. Apologies to admin my AfD tool is malfunctioning and I'm trying to figure out the problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:12, 1 August 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. Problems with promotionalism can be addressed while this is mainspace, for example by WP:STUBIFYing until someone has time to rewrite the promotional parts. So Why 14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Soe Min

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

Owner of a gallery doesn't seem to be satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Sources do not indicate that he is a notable activist or notable poet. Draft:Aung Soe Min submission declined on 5 September 2016. Phyo WP (message) 15:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This person most definitely satisfies the criteria for "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded” as historical significance is both quoted and sourced from multiple different articles. As a WP:ARTIST. WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE he satisfies criteria 1.”The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors”. Most of the references and citations clarify this in depth. Furthermore, he is cited in “multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject”, satisfying therefore both Basic and Additional criteria of the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. Draft:Aung Soe Min submission declined on 5 September 2016. Domslice (message) 23:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Furthermore, have added several academic, renown local (Irawaddy, Myanmar Times, Frontier Myanmar) and famous international journalistic sources (National Georgraphic, Nikkei Asian Review, BBC)

E. W, Ng (2017). "Ian Holliday: Through Burmese eyes. ArtAsiaPacific, (104), 52". ArtAsiaPacific. 104: 52 – via APAFT.

Gaweewong, Gridthiya (March 2015). "Southeast Asian Museums : On a Slow Path to Maturity". The Gakushuin Journal of International Studies. 2: 57–66 – via GLIM Institution Repository.

Johnston, Nathalie (2015). "Myanmar". ArtAsiaPacific Almanac. 10: 155–156.

Alex, Palmer (2014-11-13). "The Race to Save Architecture in Myanmar's Biggest City". National Geographic. Retrieved 2017-07-16. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

"Art finds its place in the new Yangon- Nikkei Asian Review". Nikkei Asian Review. Retrieved 2017-07-16.

Heijmans, Philip (2015-10-15). "Myanmar: The art of doing business in a country in transition". BBC News. Retrieved 2017-07-16.

Times, The Myanmar. "No black No white No red". The Myanmar Times. Retrieved 2017-07-16.

Times, The Myanmar. "Art association to encourage free expression". The Myanmar Times. Retrieved 2017-07-16.

Times, The Myanmar. "A new avenue for arts". The Myanmar Times. Retrieved 2017-07-16.

Gleeson, Sean. "Critical connections". Frontier Myanmar. Retrieved 2017-07-16.

Sardina Galacha, Carlos (2012-01-26). "Art for Rangoon's Sake". The Irrawady. Retrieved 2017-07-16. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Alongside pre existing sources from reputable publications such as the Myanmar Times, Guardian, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (dw).

Times, The Myanmar. "From Pansodan to Pansuriya:". The Myanmar Times. Retrieved 2017-07-16.

"Check out the counter-culture scene in Rangoon, Burma | Travel | The Guardian". theguardian.com. Retrieved 2017-07-12.

(www.dw.com), Deutsche Welle. "Artists in Myanmar: The challenges of newly-gained freedom | Art of Freedom. Freedom of Art. | DW | 02.01.2016". DW.COM. Retrieved 2017-07-16.

Legibility and clarity of article have also been ammended.

'Domslice (message) 01:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aung Soe Min submission declined on 5 September 2016.

@ Article creator Domslice, Negative, the sources fail to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). According to given references, he is not notable artist, author, or activist. Most of the sources only indicate that he is an owner of a (marginally notable) gallery, and a gentle and kind man. Some sources just mention it in passing. Citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is not added up notability. Phyo WP (message) 12:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". A few examples of independent, reliable sources which have given significant coverage:
- "Myanmar: The art of doing business in a country in transition - BBC News". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-07-17. – the BBC is a reliable source and is independent of the subject; the first half of this article is all about Aung Soe Min, which amounts to significant coverage
- Esmer Golluoglu. "'New' Burma has winners and losers | World news". The Guardian. Retrieved 2017-07-17. – The Guardian newspaper is a reliable independent source and the significant coverage includes what he is doing and a direct quotation of what he said.
- "Check out the counter-culture scene in Rangoon, Burma | Travel". The Guardian. Retrieved 2017-07-17. – another quotation from The Guardian, in which the whole of paragraph 6 is about Aung Soe Min

These are just three examples showing that the subject of this article satisfies the General Notability Guideline and the article should not be deleted. — Hebrides (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hebrides, in this case, we are discussing about notability of a person as an artist, poet or activist, etc., not about his gallery.

BBC News: the first one-third (not half) is about his gallery and politics of the country, excluding his narratives. Please take a deep look to the article. It shows that the gallery may be (marginally) notable, but not himself. This article does not support that he is a notable artist or activist.
The Guardian: only support that he is an owner of a gallery, not as an artist or poet. Please take second look to the articles. There are many names (interviews) in the articles including Aung Soe Min.

IMO, it is difficult to say that the article (not his gallery) has received significant coverage. In this BBC & Guardian articles, journalists interviewed many people, including Aung Soe Min. These references do not adequately show the subject's notability although BBC and The Guardians are reliable sources. The article is not an improvement compared to declined submission Draft:Aung Soe Min. Thank you. Phyo WP (message) 12:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phyo WP & supporting ::@Hebrides

Source 1. Thukuma: "he has for many years been a leading figure in Myanmar’s contemporary art world." Directly supports that he is a notable artist.
'Source 4, Future Cities: "The book-binder’s became a meeting place for dissidents in his village. At night, they read the books they bound during the day, then discussed human rights and politics. From the shop, pamphlets and manifestos were sent out expressing support for Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition party. When the secret service again arrived to arrest him, his answer was always the same. ‘We want education and the freedom to express ourselves"
'Source 7, Myanmar Times:"Magazine editor and film director U Aung Soe Min decided a way had to be found to help local artists recover and flourish again. He bought and curated as many works, especially paintings, as he could.He has been publishing Pansodan Art and Culture weekly since 2013, but is now re-launching it as a quarterly magazine. “It’s all about building an art culture for our future, for new generations. It’s not just about money,” he said."
'Source 8, The Gakushin Journal of International Studies: "His purpose is not only to sell paintings, but to awaken the Burmese people’s interest in the arts" (p 63)
'Source 10 Irawaddy. Your criticism of him only being discussed as a "gentle and kind man" seems both highly selective and biased. The last line in the article explicitly highlights his role as an important cultural figure and promotor of Burmese cultural and artistic life. Quote: "Faced with the neglect of the government, the conservation of the visual legacy of the country, as well as the promotion of the Burmese cultural and artistic life, depends almost exclusively on the enthusiastic work of people like Aung Soe Min."

'Source 15, The Kite tales:"Aung Soe Min breathed life into Myanmar’s contemporary arts scene when censorship was at its height and mentored a new generation of creative talent. He was regularly hauled in by the authorities for questioning over his work, particularly as the junta launch sweeping crackdowns on expression following the 1988 mass uprising against the government, although he managed to escape prison.Now he is on a one-man mission to awaken an interest in arts and history that was deadened ding decades of military rule, when soldiers trained their guns on the history books and museums echoed with the self-justifying shouts of propaganda."

These sources directly supports that he was a 'cultural activist', as the article does not ever use the word activist, saying that he uses "artistic advocacy and attempts to fight against censorship and freedom of expression" and pro-democracy movement in Burma through his engagement with the arts. This is thoroughly supported by NY article, futurecities, and most of the other articles, and your distinction that the articles primarily refer to the gallery and not Aung Soe Min is an artificial one, as he is the founder and organises the cultural acticities these articles are discussing as being important to the arts scene in Myanmar. The very title of the MM Times article (source 20) answers your criticism of him as lacking notabilty as an activist "Art association to encourage free expression"

In reply, IMO, previously declined submission was wrongly declined. Sources already demonstrated extensive notability and @Phyo WP seems to ignore that notability in the art world includes contribution to fostering creative spaces, events and encouraging artistic expression, of which most of the sources highlight (other sources with passing mention are used to support other elements of the article, not merely notability).

Draft:Aung Soe Min. Thanks. Domslice (message) 18:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, it still fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Let others decide. I don't think Abdullah Alam wrongly declined Draft:Aung Soe Min. Did you create the page Draft:Aung Soe Min? Phyo WP (message) 18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel the sources speak for themselves on the notability front.... And no, didn't create the Draft:Aung Soe Min declined in 2014. Thanks, Domslice (message) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: re Phyo WP's reply to my "Strong Keep" above:
Thank you, Phyo WP, for your efforts to ensure that articles satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. We need people like you to ensure that Wikipedia does not become a platform for self-promotion or puffery. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the notability criteria in this case. Consider, for example, the BBC article we were discussing ("Myanmar: The art of doing business in a country in transition - BBC News". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-07-17.) with regard to the general notability guideline. You claim that the subject of this source is the gallery, not Aung Soe Min. However, WP:GNG clearly states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I do not regard the BBC article as a "trivial mention" of the man, and the question as to whether he is the main topic of the article is not a WP criterion. (Incidentally, I also think that trying to draw a distinction between a person and their work is also questionable – to imply that what they have created may be notable, but the person who created it is not.) The abundance of other sources quoted above that are more than a "trivial mention" lead me to the conclusion that, despite the points you make in your reply, I maintain my original conclusion of "Strong Keep". I should add that I have no connection with Aung Soe Min, the Pansodan Gallery, Domslice or anyone else associated with this article. I simply stumbled across it when tidying up new articles. — Hebrides (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, strong draftify: shouldn't be deleted, passes WP:ANYBIO but its promotionalism but should not be kept in the mainspace due to its blatant promotionalism. DrStrauss talk 09:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No policy-based reason for deletion given. This discussion cannot and will not handle legal issues. Legal has the information, if they deem the article has to be deleted, they can do so (cf. WP:CSD#G9). So Why 07:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CWM FX

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

Owner of the ~~CWM companies~~ alleges that the company is in ~~voluntary~~ liquidation ~~by Christopher Whiteoak an Insolvency pratitioner~~ and a scammer is using the Wikipedia page ~~to manipulate financial media and classic media .They are any fraud recorded in UK concerning CWM.~~ticket:2017072310011785 S Philbrick (Talk) 16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking words not added bb me--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep please. This is nonsense. I assume the nomination is procedural and made at the request of the person behind the OTRS ticket but the content of the article is well supported by numerous reliable sources. No valid reason for deletion given. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has standards for what it keeps and what it deletes. The subject of this article meets Wikipedia's standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Company activity and events like being in liquidation are not factors which Wikipedia editors consider in determining whether Wikipedia features an article on a company. There is no valid reason presented for deleting this article so keep by default. If there is a scammer sharing false information then Wikipedia can address that, but by the edit history, it seems like someone wildly wanted to delete everything. If there is anything to say then comments can go to the article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update A representative of this company searched me out off wiki and directed me to delete the page. They say that they have no time for Wikipedia's discussion process and that the page is to be deleted immediately. They gave me court orders and said that they have legal reasons why this must be done. It is beyond my ability to address this person. I will direct them to legal@wikimedia.org and since discussion with them is beyond what volunteers can manage I recommend that others do the same. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forwarded the OTRS ticket to legal.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - A policy-based rationale for deletion has not been established with this nomination. Perhaps the issues the nom alleged can be taken to another forum but deletion is not the answer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The right answer is to respect the ethic, ethic is every thing, I'm the owner of CWM FX since March 2015, I confirm during two years nobody took the time to write the right and legal information and to update CWM FX PAGE, Why?? and today I confirm I cancel the fake news of CWM, the information is simple CWM FX is under a UK Voluntary Liquidation process by Christopher Whiteoack an Insolvency Pratitioner, that's the legal and Judicial information, he is the UK Regulator indeed CWM FX is clean and they are any financial fraud recorded in the name of CWM, that's the true fact. Fake news make me many personal and business troubles. CWM FX has been acquired legally by an US Financial Firm based in Wall Street. End of the Story (All Legal document has been sent to the legal department of Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.239.127 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would participate in this discussion but Bluerasberry's update makes me wary due to the off-wiki legal stuff. Sad really but I feel like participating here would be more trouble than it's worth. DrStrauss talk 09:03, 1 August 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 deleted under G11 by Athaenara, whose rationale was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:Mubazieric, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mubazi Eric J" (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 12:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mubazi Eric J

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

The many sources cited in this apparent autobiography are all affiliated or ordinary directory listings. Google turns up nothing useful for establishing notability either. Largoplazo (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently part of a WP:Walled garden with Iwat Solutions, now up for speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising on an unremarkable businessman. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 14:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip King (tennis)

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

Clearly non-notable tennis player. Has not achieved anything worthy of note. Fails both WP:GNG and ~~WP:NTENNIS~~. T v x1 11:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Contrary to the AfD statement, this player 100% passes Tennis Project Guidelines and WP:NTENNIS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - There're plenty of sources on "金久義" search term. STSC (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And they all fall under WP:ROUTINE.T v x1 10:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the sources are routine sports reports. STSC (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, "Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they have completed in the main draw in... ATP World Tour tournaments" per WP:NTENNIS. He has played in round 32 in some of these tournaments before. STSC (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the guideline WP:NTENNIS is superseded by the policy WP:GNG and this person does not satisfy that policy.T v x1 21:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Notability (sports), it clearly states, "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline OR the sport specific criteria." STSC (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes Tennis Project notability. Has played and won matches on the main ATP tour such as the 2006 Washington Open. Also was in the main draw of the 2000 US Open. I see no issues with his notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with notability? That this person does not have any. Notability:being worthy of note. This person has not achieved anything worthy of note in tennis. He played a couple of professional tennis matches. That's it. He won just one World Tour match ever in singles and none in doubles. WP:NTENNIS is a guideline which is superseded by WP:GNG and this person does not satisfy that policy.T v x1 17:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even in WP:GNG, it states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." STSC (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, usually this works the other way. A player does not meet Tennis Project Guidelines so we reject him. But someone points out with proper sourcing that he does meet GNG, so he gets an article but no Tennis Project tag on the talk page because the player has done nothing tennis related to be notable for. You can certainly bring up at the project that we need to be more strict, but this guy played in the US Open! I don't think anyone at the project would want to throw out his eligibility if he's played in one of the 4 Majors. And as I looked he actually played in two US Opens. But besides all that, there's a reason we have included players who have made the main draw in any ATP world tour event... they usually wind up being GNG notable.

In the old days we'd argue a player didn't do enough to merit including in our tennis guidelines. One editor would argue that they meet GNG and they'd pull out 5 newspaper articles about the guy. Bang, he's in every time. After this happens over and over, to make things go smoother and to put our time to better use, we simply included any ATP world tour main draw as assuming notability. This guy played in 10 ATP main draws including two US Opens. He played against Pete Sampras. He has articles in the Los Angeles Times here and here. ESPN did a story on him also. He won the US Nationals as a Jr twice and was the No. 1 ranking jr in the US. When that happens you get writeups. We saw this over and over and realized we were wasting our time contesting these players. Almost all met GNG by the time they played in a main draw of the ATP or WTA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he was allowed into his home grand slam twice with a Wild Card and lost in straight sets in the first round on both occasions. Home players routinely get Wild Cards to play at their domestic Grand Slam tournaments. It happens at all four of them. So do go blowing up the importance and notability of his US Open appearances. He didn't get any more wildcards after that and there is a reason for that. I really can't understand why you are so desperate to keep an unencyclopedic article on a tennis player who hasn't achieved anything of importance.T v x1 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably quite a few players that, in my own mind, do not belong... GNG or not. I didn't make all the rules but I do tend to follow them when we reach consensus. Heck, I was against all players that win a Major getting a seasonal article. But I was crushed in that consensus and I now follow that decision with no reservations at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tennis guidelines exist to keep out people squeking by with low quality coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: However, the creator of this AfD made a mistake. This player easily passes Tennis Project Guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not. WP:TENNIS is a guideline, not a hard rule, and it does not supersede the general wikipedia policies on notability.T v x1 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you made a mistake in bringing this here. That's your prerogative. But you said it fails WP:NTENNIS and it does not. It passes WP:NTENNIS by him playing in the main draw of an ATP tournament which includes the US Open. And GNG is also a guideline. Certainly, editors could rule here that he is not notable enough to warrant an article, but it won't be because of NTENNIS since he passes it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - player passes WP:NTENNIS and played at the highest level of professional tennis (Grand Slam tournament).--Wolbo (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He played at the level but didn't achieve anything worthy of note. As explained above WP:TENNIS is not a trump card to an article and it cannot be invoked to override WIkipedia's policies.T v x1 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." There you have it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NTENNIS easily. And, as noted above, he passes WP:GNG as well. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the very least, this page should be redirected to Vania King, as with many other non-notable sportspeople related to notable sports people, including Tate Matheny, Tyler Nevin, Ryan Ripken, Mariano Rivera III, Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), and Joseph LaMotta, the last two of which were explicitly closed as redirect at AfD. As I said above, I think he's notable, but if consensus is that he's not, the article should at the very least be redirected as an alternative to deletion. Pinging Johnpacklambert and Tvx1, the only two delete !votes at this point, to see if they would support a redirect instead given this context. Smartyllama (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.T v x1 18:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIAS and WP:DEADLINE. As said above, WP:NTENNIS is just a guideline and not an iron rule. I give the guideline more weight in two cases - non-English-based subject and older subject. Here, the subjects prime was about 15-20 years ago. Not much online out there, my cut off point is about 5 years. Most sources are probably in physical newspapers and magazines and I don't see volunteer editors doing a lot to check those out and as the FAQs state in WP:NSPORT, there is no time limit to force sources to be found. Plus, this subject well exceeds the guidelines - not just one appearance in an ATP 250 event, but two appearances in Grand Slams. Surely those appearances would have gained coverage, such as in local newspapers. Also, this is singles and not doubles and singles is well covered. Many articles exist for 2013-2017 recent Grand Slam competitors and they are typically well sources. No reason to believe there would not be equivalent sources for this subject if people took the time to look at hard copies. In view of all this, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really claiming that there was not much internet 15 years ago?? That's nonsense. The internet was already omnipresent in by the turn of the millennium. All the grand slam tournaments had their websites already back then. And why would these grand slam appearances have gotten special coverages. They were two Wild Card entries for a home grand slam and both of them ended with a straight set loss in the first round. There are 128 players in the first round of each grand slam and there are four of them per year. Do you genuinely believe that every single one of them gets some special coverage?T v x1 18:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far as the Internet comment, of course there was "much internet" 15 years ago. I just don't think much of it is accessible today and what is accessible by way of something like Internet Archive is hard to search - plus not everything is archived. So in other words, we presume sources were available, but has since been taken down. And yes, I do believe every one of them gets special coverage. Its not like its 128x4 - a lot of the players repeat. RonSigPi (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, King was the captain for Hong Kong in Davis Cup. I've added this source from SCMP: Phillip King turns attention to Davis Cup after Fed Cup success. This would be a significant coverage on King. STSC (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a source from LA Times, an article about King when he's 17 years old in 1999.[9] - STSC (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Another one from ESPN: Tennis isn't waiting' for former junior champ - STSC (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes both WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG IMO due to the sources that are available. The author needs to add them but they exist. DrStrauss talk 09:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There hasn't been any attempt in the discussion to show that the subject is notable by referencing specific sources, as opposed to search engine queries. Hut 8.5 21:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi D. Channannavar

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

BLP of a police officer, created by a COI editor (who claims to have taken the picture of the subject - nothing wrong with that as such, but it does indicate that there is a conflict of interest). The article contains a lot of promotional fluff, but no actual claim to notability. The sources are all local/trivial coverage. Having a job, even if one is good at it, does not automatically confer notability in Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@bonadea Please do check the number of people do search with keyword Ravi D Channannavar. Average of 230 people/Day do visit this page to get information Pageviews Analysis. Ravi D. Channannavar is a very famous Police officer unlike other police officers, He has gained lot of respect over Karnataka, India by his unique way of doing his duty. Most of the content here is referred from News papers (which has 6 crores of Readers) & TV Interview. He has been appeared in TV Shows Weekend with Ramesh where achievers are invited to share their story so that People can inspire from it. My sincere request it to not to delete this page. Please do search in Google about this person, off the wikipedia page you will get tons of articles and TV interview about him(Kindly use https://www.google.co.in for searching. This is India search engine). Please don't conclude about the notability. Please do let us know if any concerns. Thank you!

Please do use https://www.google.co.in for searching, this is what we get default search engine URL in india. Don't go by https://www.google.com which you are doing above. Before concluding about his notability check below.

Ravi D. Channannavar on online edition of Indian News papers
Ravi Channannavar Karnataka
Ravi D. Channannavar Google images
Ravi D. Channannavar Videos
Ravi D. Channannavar All search
Google images in Kannada language
Ravi D. Channannavar results in Kannada — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenNkadalaveni (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom, Non-notable by the standards of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Razer(talk) 17:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Razer Please refer my above comments to check notability.

Notability

Please do use https://www.google.co.in for searching, this is what we get default search engine URL in india. Don't go by https://www.google.com which you are doing above. Before concluding about his notability check below.

Ravi D. Channannavar on online edition of Indian News papers
Ravi Channannavar Karnataka
Ravi D. Channannavar Google images
Ravi D. Channannavar Videos
Ravi D. Channannavar All search
Google images in Kannada language
Ravi D. Channannavar results in Kannada — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenNkadalaveni (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know whether a "Superintendent of Police" is notable [10]. The news coverage appears to be mostly him acting as a spokesperson, and is WP:MILL. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Have you guys been using WP:INDAFD? It doesn't look like it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why the assumption would be that WP:BEFORE was ignored, and for this article, that includes using WP:INDAFD (which is invaluable information, even though it is not policy or a guideline). The comments above about google.co.in not being used are presumably based on the auto generated links that were created by the AfD template - again, the appropriate searches were made using the relevant search engine, not the one suggested in the template. Not saying I couldn't have missed something, of course, but since nothing has come up in the discussion to satisfy notability claims, it looks like I'm not the only one who fails to find it. (Search result listings are not a source, and nothing in those listings constitutes significant coverage.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Taylor

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

The content of the article and its references do not indicate that this individual meets notability criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC. Peacock (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Harms

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG: very few citations according to GS, no major awards, no coverage in independent reliable sources, written like a CV and not ashamed of it. Rentier (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur, reads like a resume. No independent RS to establish subjects notoriety, fails WP:GNG. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with all said above. Can't find any references in Google News either. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article from a new author which did not know that Wikipedia is not a free web space for CVs, WP:NOTCV. Happens. Ben Ben ^(talk) 16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 13:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey and the Wallbangers

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

Article about a band, who have valid potential notability claims (touring, a six-episode radio variety show) but aren't reliably sourcing them to media coverage: apart from a couple of directory entries, this is otherwise referenced entirely to their self-published album liner notes and tour posters. WP:NMUSIC, however, requires reliable source coverage: touring is not a notability claim if the sourcing for it is the tour posters or routine concert listings, but requires editorial content to have been written by media outlets about the tour; radio programs are not a notability claim until media have written about the show, and on and so forth. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this is not the sourcing that it takes to make any of this suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The band were active in the 1980's, prior to the internet era, and therefore there is little, easy available, recorded details about the activities of the band during that time. Information has been obtained in the article from independent sources such as media listings & television program listings. Bearcat points out that these are not necessarily a definitive point for accuracy, but to ensure that mistakes have not been made, all of the recorded information has been checked in interviews with some of the original band members to ensure its validity. Wikipedia is a global sharing space for information and it is important, as a historical reference for the future, that such details are not lost forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel654 (talk • contribs)

— Nigel654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note that Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be web-accessible — if they actually got real newspaper and magazine coverage in the 1980s, then you can use that for sourcing regardless of whether it's possible to link to a convenience copy on a website or not. But what we do have is a requirement that the references represent reliable source media coverage and not just a band's own album liner notes and tour posters — so if they got real media coverage, you have to show it. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be about "everything"; it is our responsibility to maintain and publish articles about things that satisfy our notability and sourcing standards, and not to help preserve the details of things that don't satisfy our notability and sourcing standards. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep - There a lot of books that at least mention the band, and some seem to go into a little depth. The sheer number of books (25+) suggest that they may be notable, but I have not investigated any further than a Google search.- Mr X 02:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue keep under WP:BAND #6 since Christopher Purves is notable and Harvey Brough is also probably notable[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] despite not yet having an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No NMUSIC criterion confers an exemption from the article having to be reliably sourced — it's not the claim to passing an NMUSIC criterion that passes NMUSIC, but the depth and quality of the reliable sourcing that can be shown to properly support the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To also discuss whether the article could be redirected/merged to the notable member's article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this sounds less like a plea for deletion than a plea for the article to have some reliable sources attached to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorbee (talk • contribs)
Keep. There's quite a bit in GBooks - not surprising since they were a familiar act on prime time British TV in the 1980s. --Michig (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at time of nomination, article was very poorly sourced and written in a rather advertisement-like style, and further work is needed - and despite what some people think, AfD is not the best way to improve an article. But just looking at the Times archive I found some press including a 1986 live review and several other mentions. Archive searches of other British newspapers should provide further opportunities for sourcing. Their 1987 album with Simon Rattle and the London Sinfonietta attracted some reviews too (jazz and classical reviews seem to stick around online longer than pop/rock). My research also indicates that the group has 2 notable members, Brough and Purves, meeting WP:NBAND #6; many of the sources on these men also discuss the Wallbangers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:G3 (pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes). (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Virtual console premium games for Nintendo Switch

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

Article is unsourced speculation on something that has yet to be officially announced. Has no place in an encyclopedia. McDoob AU93 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Seasider91 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foodjunky.com

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

Typical startup spam . nothing significant about it. Reads like press or company profile. Speedy Delete material. There is no significance for being a part of encyclopedia. Funding news and advertising about themselves. Light2021 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing notable in WP:RS. shoy (reactions) 14:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per good nomination Legacypac (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not significant enough, neither can I find outside sources. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Corporate spam. Carrite (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BaYingQuan

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

Article with many primary sources on a small school of martial arts, potentially self-promotional. The article is also very poorly written and referenced from blogs and even Facebook. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 14:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article needs serious clean-up and does look like the invention of Neil Ripski with minimal notability. Hard to argue for a keep especially since the article is really a vehicle to promote Ripski.PRehse (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and there's nothing to support a claim that WP:MANOTE is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PartsBase

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

Article about an apparently non-notable company. The only available sources are press releases, routine listings, and a mentions in connection with fraud prosecution.[18][19] - Mr X 18:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author's comment: I have included references in multiple news sources, as well as published journals and books. I believe it meets WP:GNG -- the platform has a very wide reach in the aviation sector; and clients include most big names in the industry. Silver Penguin (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yet another marketplace, just going about its business. This content can be just as effectively housed on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the risk of applying WP:OSE, the subject looks noteworthy enough based on the content in Category:Online marketplaces: look at articles like Cleanify, HomeAdvisor, LawnMowingOnline, ParqEx, Qrator etc, etc. just because this company doesn't serve home consumers directly, doesn't make it any less notable. Silver Penguin (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. References provided are routine business announcements. The comment in the lead on an A+ credit rating is typically company-oriented promotion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to fix such issues? It's not my intention to "promote" anything or present anything in a non-neutral manner. Silver Penguin (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the last question by the article's creator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- to answer the article's creator question, promotional articles on nn entities cannot be improved through copyediting, or via introduction of yet more WP:SPIP sources. Deletion is the only logical outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not writing this article as a promotional piece. If there's anything in particular you think violates the neutrality policy, let me know. Silver Penguin (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional tone can be overcome, but lack of notability cannot. There simply isn't anything in-depth that can be used to meet WP:GNG. Mainly press releases and directory listings that I found. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can't find any reliable media coverage. Fails WP:GNG. I'm also a bit thrown off that what's listed as an annual report on their site, a great opportunity to promote highlights and accomplishments, is instead a sales brochure, complete with pricing. Also, the way the article is written is a bit disingenuous - to make it sound like their revenue is USD$1 billion, but upon closer reading, that's only the value of parts that were searched for in the database. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:57, 2 August 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 WP:G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance

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

Fails WP:NCORP right now. I can't check the book source (Google Books does not have a preview that I can find) but the article reads like a PR piece and all the web sources that I can find are either press releases or paid content. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see from the Gnews results that it does get Ghits in bylined stories that are more than mere press releases or paid content in the Calgary Herald, Toronto Star, etc. -- but those are passing mentions. And it's not helped by the fact that the article reads rather like promo content, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, with content solely about the org's mission and leadership. This content belongs on the org's web site not here. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScienCell Laboratories

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources that are in the article either do not mention the company at all or only mention it in passing, or fail WP:CORPDEPTH. I could not find any additional significant coverage. shoy (reactions) 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything more than a passing mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can't find anything beyond passing mentions, even on the company's list of coverage on their site.[[20]] I know nothing about neural stem cell research, but it seems that if being the first company in the world to freeze them was a bigger deal, we'd see some mention of this at Neural stem cell. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arati Tagore

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

de-PRODed, because "can't use a web search to assess notability of someone who died in 1975". (I disagree, much pre-internet content has been digitized). Written by editor with an apparent COI, according to whom all her relatives are famous (famous is most frequently used word after "in", "also", "of", "the", "was" and "and"), even though none of them have an article. No sources are provided. I did find one book that mentions the subject, Rao, D. S. (2004). Five Decades: The National Academy of Letters, India : a Short History of Sahitya Akademi. Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 9788126020607., but that provides no information beyond crediting her as a translator. Mduvekot (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - prodded over a month ago, and no improvement to the article since then. I agree with Mduvekot's point about sourcing, while pre-internet subjects can be difficult to find sourcing on, there is usually some which can be found, there are only trivial mentions of this individual, usually as a translator. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Zee Bangla. Speedy deletion would likely be warranted here, but we will speedily redirect. As RHaworth points out, this may deserve an article if the show generates notice. Malinaccier (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baksho badol

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

I can only find one Bengali source about this TV programme: [21]. To quote from WP:NTV, In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete without prejudice to re-creation is the series achieves notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Zee Bangla. Come on, really? Is it so hard to apply WP:ATD? Regards So Why 11:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Torelli

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable cash game player with over $1,500,000 in live earning. Receiveing regular and significant coverage in the poker world, Torelli is notable and passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Torelli has over 1.5M in tournament cashes and significantly more in cash game winnings.. He clearly passes GNG http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=74855&_ga=2.41462690.108718280.1500016818-478809225.1452494301#

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, earnings is irrelevant to WP:GNG, whats needed is significant independent coverage, at the moment the article needs more in-depth sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this enough? He's clearly a poker celebrity in Italy, with plenty of coverage in the specialized press. He also gets focus in German and in French. Currently he's involved in a high visibility scandal (there ain't no such thing as bad notability, is there?). 84.73.134.206 (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't satisfy the informal Wikiproject Poker criteria and hasn't gotten much press coverage. Poker scandals are, unfortunately, a dime a dozen, and his is far from the most egregious. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the Bluff source posted below:
He also won back-to-back events at the WPT’s Fiesta Al Lago stop last year for just over $200,000, and he’s even made a huge splash at the World Series of Poker the last two years, finishing second in the 2008 No Limit Hold‘em heads-up championship for $336,000 losing to poker superstar Kenny Tran), then final-tabling the prestigous $40,000 buy-in event at this year’s WSOP, where he finished sixth for $329,000.
Doesn't this meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria? From the link:
For purposes of notability, Wikiproject Poker does not consider the Additional Criteria for Athletes to be valid for poker players. The project considers a poker player generally notable only by:
- Winning a WSOP/WPT/EPT/SBOP event.
- Winning a million dollars in a single event at an established tournament.
- Induction into the Poker Hall of Fame
He won two WPT events.
Cunard (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfriend. $1,500,000 in tournament winnings (not earnings) is nothing. bbx (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This person has received over 200 sources covering him this year alone, for example source such as PokerNews from 2015 say that he is among this first bloggers in poker. I wrote this article long before the angle shooting incident, receiving negative coverage should not nullify someone from GNG. He has also been a long time writer on Poker News [22], this person is notable and passes GNG. I have also replaced the former unreliable sources with reliable sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Valoem and 84.73.134.206. I also found that the subject was profiled in a book and other sources:
1. Hoffman, Bobby (2015). Motivation for Learning and Performance. San Diego: Academic Press. p. 251. ISBN 0128011254. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
  The book notes:
  
  Motivational Leader—Alec Torelli
  
  On the surface, Alec Torelli seems just like any other friendly guy; he is bright, talkative, and sincere, with a cheery disposition and an affable approach to life’s challenges and obstacles. In other words, in many ways he exemplifies the type of person described by the “broaden and build” view of motivation. However, Alec Torelli is no “ordinary” guy. Hailing from Orange County, California, he attended Southern Methodist University, but at the age of only 19 years, he decided to change his life and pursue his dream of financial and personal independence by becoming a professional poker player.
  Alec has played over 2,000,000 hands of poker, winning tournaments around the world while cashed out at nine final tables, including twice at the World Series of Poker and twice at the World Poker Tournament. Today, he is considered a world-class poker champion, who, by age of 27 years, had collected over $3,000,000 in tournament winnings. Alec, however, is not like the slick, commercialized, and animated characters portrayed on television; instead, he is an anomaly—he does not play poker for fame or notoriety.
  Alec’s goals are far greater than being a top-notch player. For Alec success is not just about being a winner in poker but being a winner in life. Winning means feeling adequate, loved, healthy, and financially free to live the life he wants—a life filled with freedom, excitement, and choices. Alec craves the independence of being his own boss, free to follow his passions and dreams. At the apex of his poker career, when he was cashing in on every tournament, he had a catharsis; there is more to one’s success than what happens at the poker table.
  He took a hiatus from poker and started to work toward realizing some of his dreams. He gave speeches at universities, competed in an Olympic triathlon, visited 30 countries, learned Italian, trained in yoga in Bali, studied at the Gelato University, met his future wife, and began coaching other poker players. He now thrives on sharing what he has learned with others through his coaching activities, and ironically, helping others allowed Alec to increase his own motivation to play and challenge himself to reach new heights. He has been a coach for over 6 years now and is taking on bigger challenges every day, playing against the heavy hitters at Macau, China, where the best global contenders compete in the largest cash games on the planet.
  The author of the book is an Associate Professor in the School of Teaching, Learning & Leadership at the University of Central Florida (UCF) in Orlando, Florida. Although the content has a very positive tone, I could find no incentive for this professor to promote Alec Torelli, so I consider this source independent of the subject.
2. Aller, Danny (October 2009). "The Brunson 10 (Duece)". Bluff. Archived from the original on 2017-08-01. Retrieved 2017-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  The first player signed was Orange County, CA native Alec Torelli. Torelli is 22 and goes by the name “Traheho” online, though he will use “alectorelli” when The Brunson 10 becomes a reality the first of the year. Aside from having earnings of just over $2 million between online and live play since taking up the game six years ago, Torelli has already made two final tables on the World Poker Tour – the Bellagio Cup V in January earlier this year, finishing fourth for $271,000, and most recently the WPT stop in Bratislava, where he again finished fourth. He also won back-to-back events at the WPT’s Fiesta Al Lago stop last year for just over $200,000, and he’s even made a huge splash at the World Series of Poker the last two years, finishing second in the 2008 No Limit Hold‘em heads-up championship for $336,000 losing to poker superstar Kenny Tran), then final-tabling the prestigous $40,000 buy-in event at this year’s WSOP, where he finished sixth for $329,000.
  Brunson said he first met Torelli in the Bellagio’s famed “Bobby’s Room” one night after stumbling onto a game with some Chinese investors and finding they needed a fifth player. Coincidentally, Torelli just happened to be walking by whe Brunson suddenly called out to him.
3. Kaplan, Michael (2015-11-06). "The Man with the $100,000 Breasts And Other Bets Gone Wild. Would you agree to get breast implants for $100,000? Vegas gambler Brian Zembic did". Maxim. Archived from the original on 2017-08-01. Retrieved 2017-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Other times, it’s a ballsy dare that involves potential pain and suffering. One year, during a poker tournament at Atlantis Resort & Casino in the Bahamas, a group of bored poker pros put up a stake for a guy to swim across a shark tank. Online poker legend Ilari “Zigmund” Shamies snorted rails of salt. Alec Torelli, another online poker wizard, stripped to his skivvies, swam across the water surrounding the Mirage’s famous volcano, and scaled the volcano. Torelli escaped with $1,000 earned, lost pride, and a gash on his foot.
  Once, the physically fit Torelli made a $200,000 bet with poker player Ashton Griffin: whoever finishes a triathlon in a shorter time takes the money. “Alec was training hard when Ashton went on a $1.5 million poker downswing,” remembers mutual friend Andrew Robl. “Suddenly the prop bet seemed less important to Ashton. He stopped training and bought out for $100,000. It was the easiest money that Alec has ever made.”
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apparently, the sources are inadequate to satisfy GNG Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Lijun (business person)

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

Self-promotion. A previous version was speedied at Zhanglijun. The first sentence says he's the concurrent chairman of 5-7 organizations, ranging from a video game company to TV station to a bank, is this really believable? So I googled "Bank of Asia", nothing comes up. Googled "Dubai China and Asia TV", nothing comes up. "Capital Internet Association", nothing. "China Travel Entertainment Group", ditto. The third paragraph claims "Zhang Lijun was also well known as the first person of “introducing to be listed” of China.", what does that mean? The fourth paragraph then talks about the achievement of his company. In any case, the article is badly written and requires WP:TNT even if the person is found notable. The hatnote says one should consult the zh.wiki article, but that article has already been deleted for copyright infringement. Finally, notice how the creator of the article uploaded this studio portrait photo (and many more on Wikicommons) claiming own work, suggesting WP:COI. Timmyshin (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been well amended with additional reference from Bloomberg、Yahoo Finance and Stockhouse，and internal links. So far the content mostly can be trusted as real content. Based information on another Search Engine（Baidu），Zhang Lijun was also known as the Chairman of V1 Group Limited with those titles and made his company listed in Hong Kong in 2006.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren Yifan (talk • contribs)
Note: The images used in the article are Copyvios in Commons.--1=0 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources for the information are a mixture of routine corporate filings, press releases, and a site that started as an illegal (non-GFDL) fork of Chinese Wikipedia. No RSs at all. A couple of specific indicators of WP:PROMO:

The original claim that he's chair of Bank of Asia (which is not actually a bank according to the source) has somehow become chair of Bank of China (by some measures the largest bank in the world).
Mr Zhang is said to have been 'general manager' of several Chinese firms. This is translating a term used for middle managers. To compare an equivalently trumped-up term in English, 'sales executives' are not notable corporate leaders. Matt's talk 08:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion article. Lack of reliable sources and notiability. Many of those "secondary source" references are news releases which seems like sponsered by the firm. Some others has nothing to do with the person himself (like footnote 1) or not reliable sources (footnote 8). --Techyan（Talk） 14:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are weak and mostly press releases. Lack of editorial to establish notability _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus for deletion, has been covered by independent sources. Malinaccier (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Andersen Brower

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

Some notability exists, but from my POV she doesn't pass WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The author's first book hit #1 on the New York Times bestseller list and has been optioned for a film or TV series by Kevin Spacey's production company. You know, the company that makes House of Cards. In addition her writings have been covered in a wide range of publications from The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, to many other outlets. I've added a bit of this info and citations to the article. This author is absolutely notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her book gets coverage, plus coverage here. She's a well known journalist who sometimes becomes the story herself, QED notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:AUTHOR, with multiple published books that have been a subject of non trivial reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus of the experienced editors who have involved themselves in this disaster area of an AfD is, sadly, that Hanna Yuri does not meet our notability requirements here on English Wikipedia and is not notable. Nick (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Yuri

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

Non-notable model/artist. The article doesn't seem to be satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Most of the references are local blogs and do not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. References in Burmese language do not add up notability of the article. Phyo WP (message) 15:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Dear Dr.Phyo Win Pe

Eleven Media is very Popular and strong media of Myanmar.ref interview http://www.news-eleven.com/interviews/%E1%80%9C%E1%80%B0%E1%80%84%E1%80%9A%E1%80%B9%E1%80%99%E1%80%AD%E1%80%90%E1%80%B9%E1%80%80%E1%80%95%E1%80%B9%E1%80%95%E1%80%8A%E1%80%AC%E1%80%9B%E1%80%BD%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9-hanna-yuri-%E1%82%8F%E1%80%BD%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9%E1%80%B7-%E1%80%B1%E1%80%90%E1%80%BC%E1%82%95%E1%80%86%E1%80%B6%E1%80%AF%E1%80%BB%E1%80%81%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9%E1%80%B8

7day journal ref http://www.7daydaily.com/story/45112

You can see her famous from interviews. Next, I am newbie so I don't really know how to give the reasons. If there is some fault, pls indicate it 楊過007 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the article fails to show Wikipedia:Notability (people). These interviews fail to satisfy notability as a make-up artist. Phyo WP (message) 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. I reject your comment.

http://www.news-eleven.com/interviews/%E1%80%9C%E1%80%B0%E1%80%84%E1%80%9A%E1%80%B9%E1%80%99%E1%80%AD%E1%80%90%E1%80%B9%E1%80%80%E1%80%95%E1%80%B9%E1%80%95%E1%80%8A%E1%80%AC%E1%80%9B%E1%80%BD%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9-hanna-yuri-%E1%82%8F%E1%80%BD%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9%E1%80%B7-%E1%80%B1%E1%80%90%E1%80%BC%E1%82%95%E1%80%86%E1%80%B6%E1%80%AF%E1%80%BB%E1%80%81%E1%80%84%E1%80%B9%E1%80%B8 is interview showed her about. 楊過007 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep Phyo WP~~ (This is not my vote. It was created by another user.) Phyo WP (message) 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

မြန်မာလိုပဲပြောပါရစေ အခုဆောင်းပါးမှာပေါ့နော် အင်တာဗျူးကEngလိုတော့ မမြင်ဘူးရှင့်။ မြန်မာဘာသာကနေ ဘာသာပြန်ပီး တစ်ချို့အချက်တေပဲ ကိုးကားထားတယ် ရှင့် magazine တို့ fashion bookတေမှာတော့ ခနခနပါတယ် ရှင့် အဲ့လိုအပြင်ဆောင်းပါးတေ မကိုးကားတတ်လို့ပါ အခု နိုင်ငံသိ သတင်းဌာနက အင်တာဗျူးလောက်နဲ့မလုံလောက်ဘူးးလား ရှင့် စာကလည်းသိပ်မများပါဘူး ရေးထားတာက ကူးချတာမျိုးလည်း မလုပ်ထားဘူးရှင့် ကိုးကားရှာရတာအရမ်းခက်တယ် စိတိလည်းညစ်တယ် နာမည်ကြီးလည်း ကိုးကားမရှိရင်ရေးမရဘူး အခု ဘယ်လိုလုပ်သင့်လဲရှင့် မကြိုက်တာဖျက်ပီး ထားသင့်သလောက်ထားမရဘူး လားး

ညီမတစ်ခြားGov profile & royal familyဆောင်းပါးတေလည်း ဖန်တီးဖူးပါတယ် အခုမြန်မာအနုပညာရှင်တေ ရေးတိုင်း မအောင်မြင်ဘူးး အခုလည်း ဘယ်လိုလုပ်ရမလဲ မသိဘူး စည်းကမ်းချက်တေက တစ်ချို့စာလုံးတေမသိဘူးရှင့်...engစာအနေတော် ရေးတတ်သူအဆင့်ပါ အခုမြန်မာလို ရေးရတာက engလိုဆို လိုရင်း ရောက်နိုင်မှာမဟုတ်ဘူးဒေါက်တာရှင့် ရေးလို့ရသလောက်တော့ထားချင်ပါတယ်楊過007 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia မှာ ဖျက်ဖို့ အဆိုပြုတဲ့ ဆောင်းပါးအားလုံး ဖျက်တာ မဟုတ်ပါ။ စီမံခန့်ခွဲသူများမှ သင့်လျော်သည်ဟု ယူဆလျှင် ဖျက်မှာ မဟုတ်ပါ။ ဒီဆောင်းပါးလည်း သတ်မှတ်ချက်နှင့် ကိုက်ညီလျှင် စီမံ ခန့်ခွဲသူများမှ ဆက်လက် ထားရှိမှာပါ။ အကူအညီ လိုအပ်လျှင် ကျွန်တော်ရဲ့ talk page မှာ မေးမြန်းနိုင်ပါတယ်။ ကျေးဇူးတင်ပါတယ်။ Phyo WP (message) 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, ummm ..... okay? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not oky :(

Dr. phyo win pe , where????? 74.50.209.88 (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep someone??Why don't reply my message!!! 楊過007 (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nothing in the "keep" opinions appears to make much sense, even to the extent it is in English.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is gossip-level coverage of a make-up artist in Burma, and there are no sources that suggest general notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep power enwik!!! you can read myanmar language?? lol this article is sources from burmese language... i think you can't read other sources. Shameful user- power~enwiki... lol ha ha 楊過007 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'

she is actress and model of myanmar and also Makeup Artist. Scoures from Myanmar Celebrity Media

http://www.myanmarcuties.com/2016/05/hanna-yuri-said-she-is-not-evildoer.html?m=0&tag=visit

read that.

Thanks

01:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

'Keep'

http://www.pyoneplay.com/show/Woman-To-Woman/66f883bc5dc145f180badb63f5e50348/video/F0ZTBsYjE6h1pqxyAR7D2vRVXWA4OM3T/15/6/17 ^[1] I found this tv show and interview season link. she is popular artist in myanmar.I think this season is popular in Myanmar. (Name - Khit Thit Pyo May Season MRTV4)

Thank Limaocho (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Making multiple votes on the this deletion discussion with separate accounts and IPs (Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry) is suspected. Phyo WP (message) 07:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Cmt : keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 楊過007 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: I'm not multiple user..... shit!!!

u can prove that !!!

'Keep' : that link is her Facebook page link https://www.facebook.com/Hannayuriofficial Her page is Get 'Verified Badge . Facebook Verified is get Popular celebrity and get government. Myanmar celebrity 12 people get in Verified.Hannayuri is one of in 12 people list. then she is popular artist of myannar. facebook verified is very authentic. not all user !! for top celebrity and government official acoount. diffcuts for get badge.Hanna Yuri get verfied reason for celebrity.

thanks

ref verified http://www.tricks99.net/how-to-verify-my-facebook-page-with-blue-badge/ http://uk.businessinsider.com/inside-the-facebook-mentions-app-which-is-only-for-verified-users-2015-9 http://itstillworks.com/register-official-celebrity-facebook-22519.html

00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

info infomation https://m.youtube.com/#/user/MyanmarCelebrity/2016/05/bunny-phyoe.html

103.52.12.237 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' :I found Another interveiew and her about news.

Interview from The Irrawaddy Media(Irrawaddy Media is Popular and powerful media agency of Myanmar)

http://burma.irrawaddy.com/lifestyle/2016/05/02/113187.html

And Interview video from Myanmar Celebrity Media Channel

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_nnNx9XHwrY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ATAkhEQ_g

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_aOGXgIQQ

I prove that for she is Popular Artist. Not fake artist. don't refused !i prove and vote.

Thanks Best Regards 楊過007 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although bolding a "neutral" !vote, FUNgus guy actually argued for keeping the article and despite two relists there were no further comments. A redirect can be created through normal editing. So Why 13:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation 33A

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

Everything in the article is adequately explained in the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, there is no need for another article that also fails to be notable enough to warrant an article by itself. Also a stub. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chippewa Island The Verified Cactus 100% 20:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. While certainly it's possible in principle for a First Nation and the Indian reserve it lives on to qualify for two separate articles as two separate topics, since one is a group of people and the other is a geographic entity, in actual practice it's somewhere between extremely hard and virtually impossible to actually write anything genuinely substantive about the reserve beyond a boilerplate statement that it exists and is occupied by the First Nation, the end. If we could write and source anything genuinely substantive about the reserve as a geographic entity beyond simply reduplicating content from the nation article, or if there were an WP:XY problem because the reserve was shared by multiple distinct First Nations groups, then there would be a case for separate articles — but neither of those situations applies here. If all we can really write or source is a boilerplate statement that the reserve exists, then it should simply be addressed as part of the nation article instead of standing alone as a separate permastub. By the same token, we don't maintain separate articles about Toronto as a geographic entity and "Torontonians" as a cultural one; we address both aspects in tandem in the same article. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even as a permastub. It is a distinct geographic entity, delineated by INAC, and separate from the municipalities and even the province surrounding it. I created this, and many other reserve stubs, in an effort to address Wiki's lack of indigenous content. It invites others to add content specific to the reserve. Also, Chippewa Island is a shared reserve, b/w Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama and Beausoleil. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Distinct geographic entity...separate from the municipalities and even the province surrounding it" is not a claim that applies differently to a First Nations reserve than it does to a town or city: the exact same thing could be said of Toronto, Mississauga, St. Thomas, Greater Sudbury, Ottawa, Cobden and Hearst, which are all distinct geographic entities with defined boundaries that exist separately from other entities at that level of geography too. And the problem with reserve stubs is there's rarely if ever anything that can be said about the reserve beyond "it exists and is occupied by a First Nation", for the same reason that we don't keep one article about a city as a geographic entity and a separate article about the culture and history of the people who live in it: we discuss both aspects in one article. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A First Nation is an entity that differs from a municipally-delineated population. It encompasses the band government (or equivalent), all of its traditional territory and its off-reserve population as well. As such, I see this in a nation-to-nation sense: X First Nation and Y Reserve as separate pages in the same vein as Canadians and Canada are. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that there's actual substance that can be written about "Canada" and "Canadians" as separate topics from each other, beyond just "Canada is a place that exists and is populated by Canadians, the end" — but that latter is all that can be written here. We have a lot of names of First Nations reserves that exist solely as redirects to the article about the First Nation that populates them, rather than as separate permastubs that add nothing of substance about the reserve as a separate topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous examples of unincorporated white settlements that have pages, many of which are nothing more than permastubs. So why call out the indigenous lands as being 'not-noteworthy'? FUNgus guy (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not what I'm doing — those unincorporated "white" settlements you're talking about don't pass WP:GEOLAND either, and should properly be redirected to a parent topic (i.e. the municipality that they're located in) rather than standing alone as separate permastubs that aren't demonstrating or sourcing any proper notability. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of bad content about one thing does not reify into an exemption from our sourcing and notability standards for other comparable things just because you falsely accuse another Wikipedia editor of racism — it means the bad content about the first thing should be redirected or deleted too, and just hasn't been noticed yet. In actual fact, when I come across an unreferenced or minimally referenced one-line permastub about a "white" hamlet or neighbourhood, I regularly redirect it to its parent municipality in accordance with WP:GEOLAND. But I can only do that with articles that I come across — I do not have a responsibility to go on a comprehensive safari to track down every redirectable stub that might exist anywhere in the entire country, but only to address the notability and sourcing prospects of articles that are brought to my attention.

The unincorporated "white" settlements aren't supposed to be handled differently than my initial response to the nomination — this is not here because Wikipedia policy, or any Wikipedia editor, is treating First Nations reserves differently than what "white" settlements get. Both types of settlements are supposed to be handled in the same way I've proposed here, namely by redirecting the geographic permastub to a larger parent topic if they're not sourceable or substanceable as more than just "this exists, the end", and this just happens to be the particular instance that Cactus noticed at this particular time. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I did not mean to suggest racial bias. And you make a good point, perhaps this particular article is better served as a ~~redirect~~ to the FN page until more substance can be written. Nobody brought up GEOLAND in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Naming conventions for First Nations reserves, so thank you. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my only opposition is the fact that First Nations reserves are not seen by Wiki-policy to be equivalent to other municipal-level entities. So Neutral. I can see the argument against poor-quality stubs. But if I can reference INAC, describe its geography, and give you the link to an official government map, is that much different from a railroad stop in the middle of nowhere, like Armstrong, Thunder Bay District, Ontario (mentioned in WP:CANSTYLE)? FUNgus guy (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong isn't a railroad whistle stop, but an actual community with an actual population and a governing body that gets it past WP:GEOLAND — and even if its article isn't actually spectacularly good, there is some genuine substance present about a former Canadian Forces station. And there's no potential redirect target for it — it's not part of any larger municipal entity and we don't have a separate article about the society and culture and history of the people who live in it, which means it's not closely related to any other article we could even consider merging the content into. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest issue is that FN reserves are not seen in the same light as municipalities or municipal-level entities. Even Unorganized South East Algoma District got a pass. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How far does one have to go to get proper notability? I can see your argument that "This reserve exists, is occupied by X FN, the end." is not the most thrilling Wiki page. But how much more does one need? How about Obadjiwan 15E? Two extra sentences with a ref. Does that satisfy notability requirements? Or how about Goulais Bay 15A? One extra paragraph with refs. IMO all reserves deserve a page as a municipal-equivalent, but that discussion is not yet complete. FUNgus guy (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that reserves are de jure federal exclaves within the prov/terr, where prov/terr laws do not apply. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is completely irrelevant to my point. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bush encroachment in Namibia. Not much discussion here, but the redirect seems plausible, and WP:ATD argues for that over deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-bushing Advisory Service Namibia

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

Non-notable NGO.Purely promotional. Winged Blades^Godric 10:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Note, I am the author of the first version of this article. The De-bushing Advisory Service is a notable institution within the jurisdiction of Namibia. It was initiated by the government of Namibia as a response to the national crisis of bush encroachment. It renders are public service and is not commercial. Since the institution is still young, it may not be widely known yet, further references to be added along the way. --Vision2030 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:--The newera.com source is utter promotional spam.The economist.com.na source has no editorial control and fails [{WP:RS]].Winged Blades^Godric 04:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:--Please consider the context. The Wikipedia page is about a public service institution in Namibia and the referenced articles are published by newspapers that are locally accepted as leading, (largely) independent media. No doubt that there is a very evident lack of journalistic quality, but this does not change the fact that the De-bushing Advisory Service is a notable institution (locally). Must a Namibian institution be mentioned on Western media before it is considered relevant? --Vision2030 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect content into Bush encroachment in Namibia. There are a number of issues here. ~~I'm about to NPR~~ I have NPRed the new bush encroachment page. I think the latter is probably notable, but that the article is currently poorly written with insufficient sources, and probably by an editor using a corporate account in a well-meaning manner on Namibian environmental issues. I recommend the redirect/merge and I will work with the editor to enhance that article. (Addendum: I tried to leave detailed advice and extra urls on the article creator's talk page, but a glitch in Page Curtation Tool appears to have lost that content.) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Certainly there is no consensus to delete- and the longer this goes on, the longer the production, with a concomitant growth in notability. In any case, as was pointed in the course of the discussion, AfD is not required or a pre-requisite for a merge / redirect to be discussed. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 16:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Network (play)

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

Contested PROD (removed by creator with no rationale). This is an upcoming play which is written and directed by notable people, starring a notable person and based on a notable film. However, there's not much in the way of notability for the play itself as yet beyond the sorts of coverage that these things get when announced. I therefore question its independent notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Network (film)#Stage adaptation for the time being, and once the play's notability is more clearly established, the content can be restored. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as Metropolitan 90 says. (And please note that a merge/redirect could have been done, or at least proposed, without requiring an AfD.) The content is relevant to the article about the movie but there's no need for a separate article about the play until it starts to receive more substantive coverage. While a play with these highly notable elements will almost certainly get that coverage around the time it opens, there's also the possibility it could be cancelled or delayed, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If the play goes kaput, the Wiki article can be removed at that time. Keeping the article up offers the opportunity to track the production apart from general Internet news. I would never have heard of this upcoming production had it not been for this article. A 2018 film with Dwayne Johnson has a Wiki page that no one is talking about taking down. --Hifrommike65 14:32 p.m., 26 July 2017 (CDT)
Keep It is being produced by the National Theatre rather than being a commercial production. Therefore the chances of it being cancelled or delayed are negligible, and WP:CRYSTALBALL says to include if an event is almost certain to take place. There is already a reasonable amount of coverage of the announcement of the premiere season in independent sources, like here. Boneymau (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Mitzen

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

Uneventful life of a businessman None of his ventures have been particularly successful, and none of them have articles here,Trivial little notice and local PR. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable executive. Sources include trivial mentions and / or WP:SPIP coverage, as in: "Fingerpaint Founder Recounts Road to Success!" in The Daily Gazette. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Oil

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

Non-notable company. WP:BEFORE searching fails to find any WP:RS to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I found lots of advertising for their products, lots of WP:NOTDIRECTORY listings, but nothing that talks about them as a company in depth. This article has already been through the grand tour of process: WP:A7, deletion review, and WP:PROD (where nobody objected in a week, so it was deleted, then backed out per this conversation. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...per nom. I usually have plenty to say on these things; but the nom- and particularly that expired PROD- have said everything. Although that A7 might have had a longer lfe as a G11. — fortunavelut luna 12:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the love of god. I only undeleted because you can't really object to a request to undelete a PROD, but per my deletion comments when I deleted it at PROD I thought the undisputed PROD was sufficient. I do agree that it was process wonkery to resurrect this just to AfD it. Let's put this to bed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the consensus of the other editors. Also no credible indication of significance in my opinion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which I have written says having a reference: It is the largest foreign investment in the local agricultural sector to date with a planned palm plantation and oil refinery project in Mindanao.Sarcelles (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LawnMowingOnline

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Routine announcements or company-generated PR. While some references are from "reliable sources", there are no references that pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an ad, plain and simple. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G5, G11, TOU violation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recognized as an ad even before it was confirmed to be an ad. Rentier (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ParqEx

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Routine announcements or company-generated PR. While some references are from "reliable sources", there are no references that pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has received press coverage from time-honored sources such as Wall St Journal and Chicago Tribune. If this is not notable then I don't know what is. Hsypark (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was exceedingly likely to have been created by a blocked sock per[23]. It is also kind of spammy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement. And it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Closing a round of funding is not notable. Rentier (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not establish notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates our terms of use, also reports are just 'everyday' coverage and doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Jcc. No big deal, no depth, no place on wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a unique service and is a promo piece; fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The problem here- in terms of assessing consensus- is that GEOLAND does not require a place to be populated, only to have at some time been populated. There has been enough material presented- pace the GNIS and its definition of 'locale'- to suggest that the requirements of GEOLAND are thus fulfilled. However, although there is clearly no absolte consensus to delte this article, there is still an issue in clarifying these definitions and how a locale or ghost town are inter-compatible. That discussion, of course, is for another place. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 15:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bays, WV

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

Does not seem to be notable enough, in addition to there being very few related results in an internet search. RES2773 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 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 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too early, keep It's far too early to mark their page for deletion. The page was made about ten minutes ago, and it seems a bit harsh to PROD it, as you did earlier, especially to a newcomer. Also, if it's a town, it's almost certainly notable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. That's it, pure and simple. Article should never have been PRODed in the first place even though it was started by a drive-by, promotional (now blocked) user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. An initial search for sources doesn't yield much. The USGS calls this place a locale, not a populated place,(1535322) but other GNIS entries note a former school and a former church located nearby along with a former post office at an unknown location. The supplied references are not substantial, but this looks like a possible ghost town. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates for the school and the church are for a different location, in the south of the county near Nallen. Peter James (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Jjjjjjdddddd and Kudpung. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:10 on July 2, 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I don't find this meets GEOLAND. There are no sources that show it is or was ever populated, or in any sense a community of any kind. GNIS lists it as "locale" only - which is defined as a place having human activity. GEOLAND requires population (i.e. people living there). The area today is apparently considered Birch River, West Virginia. There is no mention of Bays in this book on WV Place names [24]MB 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND, plain and simple. It's clear it exists, it's clear it was populated, good enough. Smartyllama (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a "locale" it does not pass WP:GEOLAND. "Locale" is explicitly defined as "does not include populated places". If this place is a locale, it is therefore not populated. If it is not populated, it does not pass GEOLAND. Simple. There are no WP:RSes that indicate it was populated, so we cannot assume that it was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PMC. The US Geological Survey classifies it as a locale and explicitly states a locale is not a populated place. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments above with additional evidence from MB and Peter James. There is no reliably sourced evidence that Bays was ever a populated place that satisfies GEOLAND. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PMC. Subject doesn't pass GEOLAND. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kudpung and GEOLAND. This Gbooks result shows that it was a populated place, no matter how small. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing sufficient evidence that this is or ever was a concrete, populated place. I support the inclusion of all populated places; please ping me if evidence to the contrary surfaces. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Shawn in Montreal's source which, if reliable, would be sufficient to prove that this was a populated place once. Also, to discuss whether this could be merged/redirected to the current-day area if not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:Shawn in Montreal's source and other arguments already made: a populated place, once notable always notable. It doesn't require an AFD for someone to merge it into another article about a larger place which could provide coverage about this, but we know so little about it that it is simplest to leave it separate for now. (And that is permanently okay to do, too.) --do ncr am 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammad Abbas Rizvi

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

I can't find any reliable sources about this person. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't assert notability Spiderone 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discounting the votes without arguments, there does not appear to be consensus to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program

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

I see no indication of notability. No significant coverage in independent sources found via Google News, Books or Scholar. All sources that aren't obviously primary sources are authored or co-authored by the same person (and some of the co-authors seem affiliated with the program); that's not enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs some work to address NPOV and jargon, but the project seems notable in that it has received regional coverage in newspapers including the Albuquerque Journal, Farmington Daily Times, Denver Post, and Colorado Springs Gazette (some of these suggest need for a section on objections/concerns). In addition to Gosnell's work cited in the article, Aton and McPherson's book River Flowing From The Sunrise appears to be an independent source that describes aspects of the project. The topic also seems contextually relevant to other articles, such as the San Juan River, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, Animas-La Plata Water Project, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, etc. — Quercusechinus (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rhadow (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --do ncr am 04:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot find in gnews any of the newspapers cited above. In the absence of actual sources it fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a straight Google search returns many hits in Federal Government documentation, which shows it is possible to write a neutral article on this topic. Indeed, most of the article is a copypaste of this Fish and Wildlife Service report. (I assume that as Federal Govt documentation it is is PD, otherwise I would have deleted the article per WP:CSD#G12). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 1 August 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 Lists of Transformers characters. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 15:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duocons

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. No sourced information worth merging. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge or redirect or something. No evidence of notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of Transformers characters, but I would not be opposed to a delete. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since consensus seems to redirect, we need a redirect target. List of Decepticons is a redirect now too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 13:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porinju Veliyath

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

Not notable businessman Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person with mentions in Forbes India, Economic times, Moneycontrol websites & one have a mass following on Twitter isn't notable? - Any person investing in Indian stock market will be surprised with this. His success stories are a part of history as stocks shoot up as soon as he invests in a particular stock. Please guide me as why he is not notable. Vivo78 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Justin Bieber albums were only sold in Canada, then he probably wouldn't have a Wikipedia page, or it would probably be salted. KMF (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frivolous nomination. He has truly extensive press coverage. "Famous individual investor", "Smallcaps czar". Clearly a major player in Indian financial markets. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- an advertorial BLP created by a sock master; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivo78. I'll try a G5; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fiiha

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

An article about a price comparison site. The provided sources are poor: where they do mention Fiiha, it is in passing, such as an advertorial about ties with a final passing mention that they can be bought through this site for best prices, and announcement notices about the site's social media features from 2016. I see nothing to suggest this is more than a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL proposition: fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources mention the subject company in passing, and as the company is a private this article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hieronymus, A Musical Fantasy

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

A community theatre production that does not appear to meet WP:GNG or other notability standards . There is some coverage but it is just local in nature. Boneymau (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a community theatre and does not appear notable Jobscomforter (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few searches for independent coverage establishing notability was fruitless. No third-party coverage means that the play is not of note and therefore does not merit inclusion by the general notability guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BakuBoy & Austin Blake

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

Non-notable musicians. - TheMagnificentist 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:NMUSIC unremarkable band fails WP:GNG. Beatport is considered as a WP:BADCHARTS and should not be used for notability purposes.--MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and they clearly don't meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Minimal discussion, so WP:SOFTDELETE. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BCS Sri Lanka Section

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

Fails WP:ORG, unsourced, links to non-independent sources National Best Quality Software Awards which is an AfD, and Draft:Creately at MfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 12:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable association - fails WP:ORG, as per nom. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asphalt Streetstorm

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

Unsourced, insignificant, non-notable game. - TheMagnificentist 15:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. This should probably have been a PROD first though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two sources found with WP:VG/RS custom search, GameZebo and 4gamer. Not enough indepth coverage to establish notability. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the concept satisfies the general guidelines for notabillity, but that the article's tone needs to be addressed. Tagging the article for tone improvement. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category Design

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

Unremarkable lump of jargon. TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you! I asked for help on the talk page, please also suggest improvements due to which you thought it should be here, so I can fix those particular issues. I researched the topic and read that book and articles. It is widely used in business and academics. I delivered a lecture to my students, so during a discussion, I thought this should be here so people could search and get a basic info about Category Design as it is now being used in Universities and among business people. Anyway, I have other resources I didn't include in the article. Should I do now? They are from reliable sources like Forbes and INC. Please suggest Prof.Marlin (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added those two resources Prof.Marlin (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated some more links info and sources, hope that suffice Prof.Marlin (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced and easily passes WP:GNG. "Category Design" is a viable business strategy to create a market category for a product where the market category may not have existed before. Facebook and Uber are two well known businesses that have used this strategy. CBS527^Talk 12:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I don't know what "business discipline" is supposed to mean. The article appears to be regurgitation from a book by Dave Peterson, I don't think any of the other references use this term. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think this should be reviewed by academic professionals. The term is academic and business related as Facebook, Uber, Airbnb along with many successful businesses have used it already, universities and academic institutions welcomed this and students are seeking info about it. To me, this is academically important. I have added new info including references from the Entrepreneur, Harvard business review journal, INC, Forbes, and also found that Steve Jobs and Marc Benioff also emphasized on category design. Different businesses and business related people are focussing and writing about category design as a successful strategy for a business growth and some of the most successful business have used it, so this should be on Wikipedia as it passes WP:GNG and have enough reliable sources Prof.Marlin (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a misunderstanding about Wikipedia in this article's creation. If this is to be kept (1) delete all cited sources which are not using the term "Category Design" then (2) delete all content in the article which is not backed with a citation. WP:GNG is not established for the subject. It is not apparent that the sources cited have a relationship to the subject of the article. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what has been published, and not a place for the first publication of ideas. It does not take an academic professional to determine that this article fails intro to research English 102, "writer failed to cite sources". Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respect your opinion but 'Category Designing' is an evolution of 'Creating a category' for a product or company. The point is to let people know about this market and business strategy. I tried to add as much info as possible related to the subject after this discussion is launched. Maybe we can create something about it as it is/was being used by popular and successful businesses Prof.Marlin (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading and checking the references, I think it has enough references to pass from reliable sources (Books, Magazines, News, Industries, academics, Harvard) and is a business terminology adopted by start-ups and entrepreneurs. Chrisswill (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My indication is to keep this article because I feel it meets notability requirements and it's terminology that is used by the business community. I am a member of the Business WikiProject and the WikiProject Companies and find it infuriating that so many business articles tend to be deleted or poorly written. I will make a point to keep my eye on this article and work to make it better.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the AfD appears to be leaning towards keep, but the article quality is getting significantly worse from its already bad state. Sentences like "Steve jobs was a Category King becasue of the way he categorized his Apple products, Marc Benoiff also emphasized on category desiging as a business growth strategy" have no place in this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a redirect to Category management be a possible solution here? Power~enwiki (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG in concept, but so poorly written. Salvageable, I revised the first few sentences and removed some of the later garbage. Either that or redirect it for now.DavidWestT (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Wallar Baba

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

Simply googling got me nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Heck, I have had to turn Facebook upside down just to find the village in which this run-of-the-mill South Asian saint was buried. I was lucky enough that someone posted a G-Earth screenshot, saying it was Chajjar Syedna, so after some searching, lo and behold: 34°30′45″N 73°03′09″E / 34.512403°N 73.052362°E / 34.512403; 73.052362 actually has a marker in G-Maps with مزارشریف (حضرت ولاڑبابا جی) or "Mazār Sharīf (Ḥaḍrat Wallaṛ Bābā Jī)". Considering that the village is so small that Google does not even name it and that I get zero unique non-wiki-related hits, even for the Urdu-script variant, I'd say that this "saint" fails WP:GNG by a mile. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another article about an obscure South Asian religious figure created in good faith by fans. The article bears all the hallmarks, from the lack of sources outside of Wikipedia mirrors down to quaint claims of notability based on purported local shrines/commemorations. This has become so common over the past five years or so that the phenomenon almost deserves its own Wikipedia essay. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bimala Rai

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

Non-notable musician, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass general notability guideline and no evidence to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - existing sources aren't reliable. No reliable, independent and significant sources can be located on Google. - TheMagnificentist 12:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. A few searches on Google and Google News do not unearth significant independent coverage. The subject does not appear to satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion. Malinaccier (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Arpita Mukherjee

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it fails WP:GNG for notable people. The musical artist is unremarkable, apart from being contestant of reality shows. I suspect this may also be a case of paid editing without disclosure. As the creater of the article is a brand new editor but the article especially infobox is properly formatted to a knowledge of experienced editor. Please join for a discussion Anoptimistix (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Page has been moved to Arpita Mukherjee (singer).CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Similar pages created by same user at Draft:Singer Arpita Mukherjee and User:Riddhimodi1. Yeryry (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ofir Kremer

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

She is still failing WP:NGYMNAST. Looks like WP:TOSOON for her. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for gymnasts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hanoune

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

Non-notable activist. It was deleted on ar.wikipedia for that same reason. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shukla Beharilal

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. DrStrauss talk 11:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources outside of incidental mentions; therefore does not meet notability guidelines. --Hazarasp (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also fails WP:BLP1E - GretLomborg (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can't add the first girl of every region in the world, or even of India to get in Oxford. First girl to get there, ok, first Indian girl, okay, but let's not get too far.-- Socerb102 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kumar (businessman)

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

Typical spam/promotion.PR sources half of which covers him trivially. Winged Blades^Godric 10:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO; sources are more about the company than about him. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- SPA-created, advertorial BLP: Special:Contributions/Moldovalentino. Nothing worth salvaging here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 13:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SD (rapper)

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

Non-notable. Jennica✿ / ^talk 09:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient in-depth and persistent coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 15:32, 1 August 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. Consensus is to delete. The artist does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines Malinaccier (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayrope

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

Nominated for speedy deletion, but has some borderline claims to importance including a significant body of work and several albums. However, at a cursory glance I can't find any in-depth coverage and can't confirm that any of his music satisfies the requirements of WP:BAND. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently including better (compliant) references. Please look back at this and reconsider. Thank you. Jayrope (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI comment self-written vanity page, obvious conflict of interest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It is high time we purged all autobiographies from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as references are a interview in a local (online) magazine announcing a live performance at a local festival (in German), three times bandcamp sites, online sales of records and one own project. Doesn't reach WP:MUSICBIO, not even the new criterias for being outside mass media traditions. Ben Ben ^(talk) 16:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. DrStrauss talk 11:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perfect example of WP:CRUFT- if we needed one. — fortunavelut luna 15:30, 1 August 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadorial Brothers

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

Each brother is notable by himself, but there is nothing, that suggests the brotherhood has something to do with notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they are referred to here [25]as "Three Ambassadorial Brothers", I must accept that the group wasn't widely known as the Ambassadorial Brothers. Each having a different separate page will due. As the creator I agree that the page should get deleted. -ChiefWanag, 19:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think we may be able to speed this along per WP:G7. I've tagged it accordingly with a link to this discussion, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 12:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoyle (died 1692)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Prod was removed by creator with no edit summary ~~or discussion~~. Notability is not inherited, and the only claims to notability here are being the son of a notable person and the friend of a notable person. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No credible claims to importance or significnce that add up to notability, broadly construed. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, as explained in the Talk Page (I did not remove the deletion tag without discussing it), the article meet the WP:BIO John Hoyle is extensively present in the writing of Aphra Behn, one of the first women playwright in England, but he is also discussed in writing about LGBTQ History, due to his trial for Sodomy.

Boleyn and Kudpung, moreover when I tagged John Hoyle from the Aphra Behn page, the link from the Aphra Behn page was point to a "wrong" John Hoyle, lived almost 100 years after the right one. It's confusing to researcher, who, without the right page, could be mislead.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elisa.rolle, sorry, I've struck the comment that you removed it without discussion, but as you removed it without an edit summary and without pinging anyone to join a discussion, this was missed. Misdirected links can be corrected by removing the link, rather than creating an article. Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 letter from Behn and a trial for sodomy is not sufficient to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, It's not just one letter, one letter is what I have used as quoted text cause it was referring to the homosexuality of Hoyle. Hoyle is more present in Behn's writings, only that I do not think is the case to quote all of them. It has also being said that Hoyle was one of Behn's lovers, but that is all interpretation from their letters. We are talking of people from 400 years ago, it's difficult to discern what is true and what is implied.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His father's notable; he isn't, nor can he inherit notability from his association, whatever it may be, with Behn. Reconsidering ... Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~, or at the very least a much more substantial presence in Behn's article~~. A surprising amount is known about this fellow. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking over the current sources and a google books search for Hoyle and Behn, there seems to be quite a bit of coverage, enough to pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aphra Behn per notability WP:NOTINHERITED; he seems mainly notable for his relationship to her and his influence on her work. Besides that, his crimes and lawsuits don't meet WP:CRIME, and his political career was described in the only source about him as "not a particularly prominent member of the York corporation" and as "[leaving] little trace on the parliamentary records." His most notable personal achievement seems to have been obtaining the office of Lord Mayor of York, but going from List of Lord Mayors of York that doesn't seem notable enough in an of itself and fails WP:POLITICIAN. [that apparently was his father not him] - GretLomborg (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his father was Lord Mayor. However, consider how much is known about this 17th century person. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.I was confused and didn't realize so much of the article content and sources were about his father and not him. That makes him even less wiki-notable in my eyes per WP:NOTINHERITED. Being merely documented is not sufficient for notability. He just seems like an average well-off 17th century guy who had legal problems and an association with a wiki-notable writer. GretLomborg (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are all over the place - needs more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comments, Hoyle is more than only a name attached to Behn, therefore the independency of his page is needed.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article as it now sits shows sufficient sourcing to fulfill our General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements; sufficiently sourced at this point and establishes independent notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athar Tahir

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recipient of Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. received press mentions which confirm he's a prominent poet [26] as well served as federal education secretary. [27]. --Saqib (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the search results linked by Saqib are more than satisfactory. Easily passes WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 12:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Reazuddin Atash

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

No source. Tried to find but nothing came up. He fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although he is not notable in english, I am wondering if there are sources in other languages. I am a bit surprised that he does not have articles on WPs in other languages though. No WP:RSs seem to exist in english and there is no evidence that there are sufficient notable sources in other languages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found nothing in RS. Have searched in some Urdu sources as well but nothing except this which is not enough. --Saqib (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage to show it passes author inclusion criteria. DrStrauss talk 10:40, 1 August 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. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL players who spent their entire career with one franchise

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

Completely arbitrary list, which is not anything recognized either in the NHL itself or in hockey as a wider sport. Ten seasons is not some inherent mark of notability, and there is no reason such a list needs to exist. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:25, 8 July 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 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long tenures are notable, but the parameters of this list aren't. I found lists of the most famous players to only play with one franchise, but that is editorial in nature.18abruce (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of spending career with one team is a notable topic in the NHL. Therefore it is a valid list. Per the guideline on lists, the individual items in a list don't need to be notable, just the list itself and it is. -DJSasso (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Djsasso says, this is a valid, notable topic. Lepricavark (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but with caveats. I agree that the topic of players spending their entire career with one team is notable (at least, I know it is in other sports, and would be surprised if it's not in hockey). My concern at present is a lack of sourcing specifically saying that 10 years is the "right" cutoff point - it's an appreciably long time, sure, but unless there's a general sense among extant sources that spending your career in the one place for a decade rather than 8 years or 12 (for example), then it's an arbitrary number. As a secondary issue - and probably more of a cleanup one than anything else - I'm puzzled by some of the ways the years are listed, in that you have Bob Armstrong (listed second) reading "1950-1951, 1952-1962", which implies a break for some reason, while another name (Bill Barber, both cases selected randomly) reads "1972-1984", implying no break. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As others have stated, this is a notable topic within hockey at least. I recognize issues around setting a cutoff, but I don't have a problem with 10 as it represents a substantial career and fits the cultural affection for round numbers. That said, I would have no objection if a discussion results in a consensus that the appropriate cutoff should be 8 years or 12 years or some other non-trivial duration. But that is an editing issue, not a basis for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Munni Irone

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

The article is awfully promotional, in my opinion, and I don't find much, if any, truly independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. I searched Google using "munni irone" -"Art For Peace Awards was hosted and given in Mumbai" to exclude one piece of boilerplate language repeated in many sources, leading me to suspect it was a press release. Largoplazo (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is about a woman who is considered a high achiever and an inspiration, http://newslinemagazine.com/magazine/profiles-expat-high-achievers/ a woman from Pakistan who is making a difference in the western world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.13.173 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be a helpful article for establishing notability. Are there others? Largoplazo (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Highly promotional article created by a WP:SPA who appears to have only worked on this and other deleted, related articles such as Arts 4 Peace Awards. Clear failure of WP:NOTADVERTISING. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bannu Press Club

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage or content to justify an article. DrStrauss talk 10:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Fletcher (actor)

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

Actor/Musician who doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:MUSICBIO. Was speedy deleted via A7 on the 7th, then recreated later the same day and this time passed the A7 CSD, with the admin suggested an afD. I decided to address my concerns first on talk page here. No replies there in the 9 days since, and no indication of significant coverage being found, or improvements to the the blpsources, other than adding two references from a music blog. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. DrStrauss talk 10:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Turtles#Discography. Consensus is that the album does not satisfy the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Of course, SoWhy makes a good point that this can usefully be redirected--closing as such. Malinaccier (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control (The Crossfires album)

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

This is actually an interesting piece of history (for Turtles fans like me anyways) but the album doesn't have any coverage nor was it originally released on a major label -- or any label for that matter. I would say merge what little info is here but The Turtles article sufficiently covers the Crossfires. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. gongshow talk 17:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per TheGracefulSlick. Few major reviews, fails WP:NALBUM. DrStrauss talk 10:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Turtles#Discography per WP:NALBUM. Regards So Why 12:23, 1 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tceqli

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

Tceqli (formerly Ceqli) is an artificial language which lacks notability. There are no citations on the page except to websites maintained by the language's creator. Google searches for "Tceqli" and "Ceqli" does not turn up any coverage except for a handful of personal websites and Wikipedia mirrors. A previous AfD nomination also linked to its appearance in a list of conlangs in a magazine article: link (Russian). There were claims that the language has an ISO 639-3 code, but that does not appear to be the case. Besides the ISO claim previous arguments against deletion were mostly based on WP:WAX and WP:IKNOWIT. Delete per WP:NN.

Edit: the language's creator has changed its name since the previous AfD discussions. They can be found here: 2004, 2005, 2007. Hermione is a dude (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hermione is a dude (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get more opinions and a more solid consensus, given that this is the 4th nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument often presented in previous AfDs is that it is popular on Usenet as a conlang, but does not pass our notability standards as all references to it are WP:SPS. menaechmi (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: simply fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 10:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best of the Web Directory

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

I cannot find any indication that this directory meets the general notability guideline. My searches revealed no reliable, independent sources that talk about the directory in depth. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling to find sources online, but the original incarnation of this in the mid-90s surely has importance in internet history as one of the first guides to the web (along with the original Yahoo! hierarchical directory). I'm not sure about subsequent incarnations, which appear much less notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the existing sources don't seem to meet WP:GNG criteria. I cannot find anything else about this on Google. - TheMagnificentist 12:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sources to show notability. DrStrauss talk 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuber Rai

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

Non-notable musician, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, this source published in 2003 mentioned him award winning musician but I failed to find anything to support this claim. I'm open to withdraw my nomination if anyone can prove that the award was notable and provide some reliable sources but for now it fails WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guideline GSS (talk|c|em) 05:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I failed to find anything related to this topic in a Google search. - TheMagnificentist 12:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. DrStrauss talk 10:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 12:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porvata

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

In Polish sourcers this god are didn't figure. This is fake. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 10:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a large number of Google hits for sites containing the exact words used in the stub - but whether they all copy from WP, or all including the stub copy from some other source, I can't tell. None of those sites are what you would call authoritative or even well attributed, for what it's worth. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find anything about this anywhere. With the little content, maybe it's better off on Wiktionary? - TheMagnificentist 12:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary. DrStrauss talk 10:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 12:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surround (post-production)

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

Fails WP:CORP - TheMagnificentist 14:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPIP and WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The (primary) source for the Clio award does not say that Surround received a Clio award.- Mr X 19:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NCORP. DrStrauss talk 10:32, 1 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balant odia

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

This is very difficult, like an AfD I created yesterday, this has no English language sources, and has no Odia script of 'Balant odia', making it very hard for me or anyone else to find sources. I cannot read Odia, and I suspect that many readers cannot either, and GTranslate cannot translate that language yet. Thus delete, if we are stuck in this situation (because it fails WP:GNG) or keep if a miracle can happen, and someone who knows Odia comes along and finds some good sources for this. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently there are no sources to show GNG being met Spiderone 16:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N at the moment. More sources needed. DrStrauss talk 10:31, 1 August 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. So Why 10:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autobahn Police Simulator

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am seeing a few sources in german. [28] [29] [30]. To find them you need to search with the german name. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is a wordpress blog with no indication of editorial oversight or policy. Source 2 is authored by BIGJIM (experienced user), which implies it is not written by staff member. These two don't seem like reliable sources. The ComputerBild article seems useful and reliable, however one reliable source isn't enough. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 uses wordpress as an engine, but seems to be a legitimate game journalism site. The second source is a review by an 'experienced user' (whatever that title means), yes, but the site does not seem to allow self publishing so it must have been approved by the editorial team (i.e. editorial oversight), borderline but acceptable for a non-controversial article like this. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is not a legitimate game journalism site. Their About Us page says that it is a community gaming site: https://inthegame.nl/wie-zijn-wij/. There is no indication that they have professional writers or an editorial team. User generated content is generally unacceptable. I don't agree that we should be accepting user generated articles as reliable sources to bolster a game's notability. Just because the site allows self-publishing, this does not imply that it is approved by an editorial team. WP:SPS. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, here are two additional sources[31] [32]. I'll remove the disputed ones if you like as we have better. Edit: although please note that source 2 does not count as user generated content unless the site allows reviews to be posted without passing by the editorial board (i.e. like a forum), which does not seem to be the case at that particular site. Though I could be wrong as I am relying on G translate. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh here are a couple more [33] [34]. Also in Eurogamer.de that they had a presentation at Gamescom [35]. A mention in journaldugeek.com [36]. The list goes on. No not all the sources are awesome, but it speaks to the main point: it meets GNG. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's a clear consensus here to not keep this as a stand-alone article. Normally, I would be willing to stretch things to go with the suggested merge, with a nod to WP:ATD. But from some of the comments here, this is more of a WP:V issue than it is WP:N, and WP:V really is a bright line requirement, so I'm going with the straight delete.

It's possible a new article (or a new section of L. Ron Hubbard) could be written on this topic, but it would need better sourcing, and possibly a change in slant as proposed by User:Icewhiz. If somebody wants to try doing that, my suggestion (and it's only a suggestion) would be to write it in draft space and ping the participants in this AfD for their input. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Tom (medicine man)

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

There is no historical significance to this article and it is questionable if this individual ever existed. Calvinwhitehurst (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't know how significant a fellow that L. Ron supposedly was supposedly associated with would be, but the rest of it is a bunch of original research trying to tie three possibly different people together without warrant. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - would support retaining if this was re-cast as a (perhaps mythical) Scientology figure - as such this figure seems notable. As written - with possible associations, scant sourcing, and lack of focus on the Scientology aspect - not.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless much improved. Unless he was an extremely important in the establishment of Scientology, I would suggest that the subject was NN. It would seem not to be clear in Hubbard's influence and the man in the photo are the same. If he was so important, I would have expected the article to say more of how he influenced Hubbard. Aperson he merely met would certainly be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to L. Ron Hubbard. That appears to be the primary reason this individual is currently considered notable. There is no indication that the individual photographed is the same individual Hubbard claimed to have met. If more info develops, the history is preserved and the bluelink can be made back into an article. For now, though, it's a content fork. Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Juma

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. an unremarkable career, being awarded a USAID grant hardly advances notability. could not find any extensive coverage of her. gnews comes up with a lot of hits from Malawi where a namesake has been commenting on wildlife articles. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidence of notability not yet there. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete inspite of receiving some press mentions, she doesn't seems to meet WP's notability requirement. --Saqib (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshore Broadcasting

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

Small radio broadcasting company whose operations are limited to a single region, and not reliably sourced as the only references here are a Facebook post and two CRTC decisions. Companies require sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, but none is present here. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 12:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olisa Odele

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

Fails WP:Actor and GNG Rayman60 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Trusty

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

I have to admit I hate nominating this article for deletion. I created this article, and in the past I helped it survive a speedy deletion (or maybe prod deletion) attempt. Wikipedia lacks adequate numbers of article on women involved in writing, adequate number of articles on African-American women, especially African-American Mormon women. The fact that my fiancee is an African-American Mormon woman makes me not want to delete any articles on people who are such. However I also firmly believe that we need to limit our coverage to people who meet notability guidelines. While when I created this article I though Trusty met notability guidelines, I have come to have a better understanding of the guidelines since then. The article is too dependent on staff bios from her employers, which are not independent, reliable 3rd party sources. My search for more sources turned up nothing helpful. I did find an interview on the blog podcast SistasinZion, but that probably does not rise to the level of a reliable source. There is just not enough to show that Trusty is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly speedy too because the author is nominating it. No 3rd party coverage and there is nothing notable about being a Mormon journalist working for Deseret News - everyone who works there is. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone who works for the Deseret News is a Mormon. Until about a year ago the editor of their general religion section was a Seventh Day Adventist. The Deseret News has in the past had a Catholic as an editor-in-chief. Many of the staff are Mormons, but by no means all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my hasty generalization but my point being Mr. Lambert that the Deseret News is partially owned by the LDS Church and whose publications mostly fall in line with their teachings. There is nothing notable at all with being an journalist (Mormon or not) with Deseret News by itself. If she was involved with the publication a noteworthy story or had any articles written about her than she would be notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blueprint Registry

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

Not notable. Almost all the references are just mentions of the company i The NYTimes article barely mentions it,i n an article about the line of business. Forbes ditto, and also /Entrepreneur m, judging by the title--I could not identify the article. GeekWire is a classic promotional article, and reads just like a press release. The article in the Seattle Times is a local article about a local company. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on G5, G11, and it being created by a TOU violation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear violation of the terms of use that should not even get the benefit of assessment under local en.Wiki policy. For what it is worth, it also fails our local policy of WP:NOTSPAM as a clearly promotional article, and the sourcing doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, making it fail both the GNG and the NOT prong of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per every prior argument.- Mr X 18:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 15:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French Quarter, Philadelphia

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

This isn't a neighborhood. In 1999, some people tried half-heartedly to pretend it was. Now nobody does. TypoBoy (talk) 03:14, 24 July 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 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:RS references I can find to the area since the late '90s. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. According to File:FrenchQuarterPhiladelphia.jpg it's still officially designated as such (or at least it was in 2014) by the city of Philadelphia which is sufficient for GEOLAND because it's a "Populated, legally recognized place". Also, there are three sources in the article and while one might be broken, that alone does not qualify it from being a RS. Regards So Why 09:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SoWhy. Clear pass of GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk 10:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GEOLAND. Also found this Not sure of it's reliability though. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bidisha Bezbaruah

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

Delete: insufficiently notable as actress; tragic circumstances of her death cannot and do not confer notability. Not a fansite also relevant here. Quis separabit? 03:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was doubtful about actress' notability, when i created.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for her death, archetypal WP:BLP1E case. Edwardx (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Museum of Corfu

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

fails WP:ORG. I found nothing in Greek or English for this museum names. the foreign language versions of this article either have primary sources or one source only. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I have found at least ~~five~~ 14 RS in English: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Dr. K. 02:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd source is a primary source, 3rd source is a 1 line mention in a book, 4th source is a travel guide, 5th appears to be 1 mention in a whole book. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other ~~seven~~ nine sources I added? Dr. K. 03:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W. C. Riley

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

Delete: does not appear to meet threshold for notability under SPORTS or ATHLETE.

Also, delete W.C. Riley (redirect) Quis separabit? 02:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we almost always find that any head college football coach who has coached for a few seasons achieves notability through WP:GNG. You can see reasoning at WP:CFBCOACH. It's not surprising that there are not very many online news sources easy to find for a head football coach in the time period of 1930-1934. For reference, review WP:CFBWEST.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald : "we almost always find that any head college football coach who has coached for a few seasons achieves notability through WP:GNG" -- really? Will check out WP:CFBCOACH and WP:CFBWEST as per your suggestion but am not withdrawing nomination [yet, anyway]. Need to hear from more editors. Quis separabit? 11:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect you to withdraw your nomination, the discussion is always valuable and makes Wikipedia better. Let it run its course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has since been expanded. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional sources now added to the article establish that the subject passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul McDonald, Cbl62 and Ejgreen77. Rikster2 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RKSV Nuenen

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

Redirected, since it is a non-notable amateur club which meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Redirect was reverted with the rationale it clearly met WP:FOOTYN, although their is no indication that this club ever played for the national cup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - At the time of nomination the article looked like this, with no indication it passed NFOOTY, since there was no mention of having played in the national cup. NFOOTY is pretty clear on the distinction for inclusion as having played in the national cup, not simply being eligible to play in the cup. Any of the clubs in the amateur league which have actually played in the cup are notable as per NFOOTY, those that haven't, aren't. Am glad to see the effort Gidonb has now put into the article. Since it is now clear that the club has played in the national cup, which was nowhere mentioned prior to the nomination, I withdraw that nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep RKSV Nuenen is a Dutch Hoofdklasse club that easily meets WP:FOOTYN. Under the section club notability FOOTYN states with the bold in the source: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. As RKSV Nuenen and all teams in its league participate in the national cup, the serial deletion of such football clubs, without any warnings or discussion, is unacceptable. The last discussion of this sort ended in speedy keep and this one should as well. The club is notable also under WP:GNG and WP:ORG but the fact that that the relevant policy is so clear should be sufficient to again speedy keep. In fact players at these amateur clubs get paid. Netherlands is among many nations that keep paid players amateurs so they could play as amateurs in international venues. These clubs participate and succeed in the national cup, including, specifically RKSV Nuenen. Just linked one of these cups back to the club! I suggest that deletor undoes all his deletions given our policy and withdraws the nomination given the clear conflict with our clear policy, there to overcome widespread problems of sports fraud (i.e. nominal amateurist leagues where players and staff are professionals). BTW the Hoofdklasse is also a national league, would one disregard the national cup, however, since the Netherlands does have a national cup structure, WP:FOOTYN is clear that this is what matters. gidonb (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - club has played in the KNVB Cup, the Dutch national cup, per this amomgst others. Therefore notable as Gidonb states above. Giant Snowman 07:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cup appearances. Number 5 7 08:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition, as reliably sourced above. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppina Projetto

Non-notable supercentenarian. Should be redirected to the list of Italian supercentenarians. RightGot (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians as a non-notable supercentenarian. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage in reliable sources and the guidelines to biographies at the WP:WOP Wikiproject tell us she belongs on a list. Just wanting to add that this was redirected before an anonymous IP (in their first ever edit) reverted it. This topic area has a long history of IPs reverting redirects so it's best to delete and redirect these articles. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per nom and CommanderLinx. Longevity is NOT a basis for WP:N. Article can be recreated IF notability can be established through sufficient WP:RS (probably in a year or so). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians. Unnotable in her own right. DrStrauss talk 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Kocevski

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

Not sure if this person is notable per either WP:BIO or WP:PROF - or not notable per Wikipedia standards. References don't seem to indicate significant coverage in reliable sources when translated via Google translate or otherwise. However, I discovered on World Cat (please see link [37]) a list of books apparently authored by this person. Looking for input to either delete or keep. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author's books can be found on Google books, and the titles and previews can be translated via Google as well. Here is blurb in an English-language book pertaining to this author - [38]. It might be necessary to scroll up or down a little bit. Also, seems to be listed in Google Scholar. (Posted by the Nominator). Steve Quinn (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I was asked to comment. The Google translation of the Macedonian article shows a considerably longer list of publication, as does WorldCat. The Macedonian article also says he is editor of the magazine Разгледи (Razgledi) which WorldCat shows to have significant holdings in non-Macedonian libraries. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensively published Macedonian author with news coverage, and also some scholarly publications. Meets WP:BASIC. Should not have been listed for deletion. gidonb (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seeing him mentioned in GNews as "a chronicler of Macedonia's capital" and a "renowned Macedonian writer". Sources are likely to exist in Macedonian. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of breakfast cereals per ATD-R. Clear consensus that at this point it has not been established that the subject is sufficiently notable for its own entry. The only argument against the redirect was that the search engine will find it anyway, however, redirects are not only for searching but also for linking and it's doubtful that any user will find the list when trying to link to the cereal. Also, leaving the history in place allows interested editors to try and create a better article that might actually pass GNG. So Why 09:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Grahams

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

There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this brand; nothing for people to learn from. Wikipedia is not a directory, where every consumer product needs an article ~~to be listed~~, on the basis that the product exists. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triscuit. I'm not clear if you're unaware of the brand, as was the case with the Triscuit nominator, or if you are aware and you believe that it's not notable. This is a major breakfast cereal, at least in the USA; it's not just any consumer product. Breakfast cereals definitely aren't my area of focus, so I won't advocate keeping or deleting; I just want to ensure that you be aware of the basic issue. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have had many a bowl. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. No more comments from me. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence at the moment. obviously this is notable in theory as a commercial product whose name and advertising many people readily recognize, but the sourcing here isn't actually helping us to say anything substantive about it to make the article much more than a WP:NOTDIRECTORY fail: of the four "references" present, three are primary sources (an "ingredients and nutritional information" page on the website of its own parent company, and two YouTube copies of its advertisements), and the only thing here that actually represents reliable source coverage about it in media is a blurb so unsubstantive that nothing else could have gotten into Wikipedia if that was its only source. Now, obviously in principle it should be possible to make the sourcing better than this — but that isn't an automatic notability freebie until someone does show that better sourcing does exist, and "I've heard of it" can and must never hand any topic an exemption from having to meet certain standards of sourcing. So I'm not a clear delete yet, as I believe it's entirely possible that better sourcing may exist somewhere — but I can't and won't say keep either, until somebody does the work to show that better sourcing does exist somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as apparent business promotionalism; also Wikipedia is Not A Directory. Quis separabit? 03:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a popular cereal in the US. But Golden Grahams don't appear to meet the WP:Golden rule. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to General Mills or List of breakfast cereals. Regardless of notability this is a plausible search term given the cereal's popularity. Essentially, do anything but delete it outright. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am not opposed to this being in a list somewhere. I don't see the need for a redirect; as crappy as our search engine is, it will find it if somebody searches for it. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you're going to go down that road, you'll have to include all the rest: List of Breakfast Cereals that have their own page for less importance than Golden Grahams here on WP. It is a cereal still in circulation since 1970; and there are dozens of cereals discontinued that have pages. If WP allows Golden Nuggets, Golden Crisp, et al under just the G's ... I suggest the nominator get busy in their mission to rid the WP shelves of all the boxes they deem empty of content for this subject. Maineartists (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't whether it's still on the shelves or not; things that went defunct a thousand years ago or more still get Wikipedia articles if they can be sourced as significant — Pangaea, for example, does not still exist today and is about 300 million years older than any breakfast cereal, but it's still sourceable as noteworthy. The key issue, which no article ever gets an exemption from for any reason whatsoever, is reliable sourcing that properly supports the notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my "keep" to mere "comment" - agree with Bearcat. So ... get busy, fellas. I see a lot articles out there on tons of stale old cereal needing a good deleting. Cheers! Maineartists (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a search of my library database and found literally hundreds of articles on the Golden Grahams brand, including articles in AdWeek, Marketing Week, The Commercial Appeal, Marketing, Food Management, the Wall Street Journal, etc. A lot of the coverage focuses on how the cereal is marketed, but it's coverage that supports notability nonetheless. WP:BEFORE would have been good here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And these articles had "significant coverage"? Could you please cite one or two (the best maybe)? Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched my library too and here is the kind of dreck I found:

Golden Grahams bars go king-size. Professional Candy Buyer. 16.5 (September-October 2008): p74., the entirety of which is (minus the picture): "GENERAL MILLS INC. offers Golden Grahams Treats, king-size cereal bars exclusively available at c-stores in two varieties: chocolate marshmallow and peanut butter chocolate. The items ship in 12-ct sleeves and have a SRP of $1.19. Circle No. 203 On Reader Reply Card."
Kellogg Goes Crackers; Kellogg Faces Battle Over Breakfast Table as Cereal Partners Launches Golden Grahams. Hoggan, Karen. Marketing; London (May 2, 1991): 4. (about battle between Kellogg and Cereal Partners for UK breakfast cereal market!)
General Mills is converting all its Big G cereals--including such brands as Trix, Golden Grahams, Lucky Charms, Rice Chex and Cheerios--to whole grain. Megan Rowe. Food Management. 39.13 (Dec. 2004): p56. The entirety of which (minus the picture) is "GENERAL MILLS is converting all its Big G cereals--including such brands as Trix, Golden Grahams, Lucky Charms, Rice Chex and Cheerios--to whole grain. Big G breakfast cereals made with whole grain will be available this winter and continuing into 2005. In taste tests, 9,000 consumers liked the new versions as much as or better than the existing cereal recipes. For more, check out www.generalmillsfoodservice.com Circle 108"
Research Notes: INNOVATION IS LIMITED TO BRAND EXTENSIONS da Costa, Ruth. Grocer; (Feb 14, 2004): 46. Abstract: "Kellogg's launches have included Special K, Fruit 'n' Fibre and Nutri-Grain Minis. Cereal Partners have also used the same route in the form of Cheerios, Golden Grahams and Nesquik cereal bars. Weetabix and McVitie's have also launched new products this year."
McTunes. Promo; (September 2002): 11. which says: "General Mills next month becomes the first cereal brand to offer on-pack DVDs. Through a partnership with Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, Culver City, CA, more than eight million DVDs will be distributed via 20,000 retail locations. Consumers who buy two select Columbia DVDs will get one free by mail in a year-long program flagged on General Mills cereal packs. Among the Columbia titles offered on boxes of Cheerios, Honey Nut Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Golden Grahams, Honey Nut Chex, and Cinnamon Toast Crunch are Jim Henson's The Muppets and Jackie Chan films. General Mills, Minneapolis, handles in-house."
lots of false hits like: Golden Graham Dobkin, Matt. Harper's Bazaar; New York 3458 (Jan 2000): 74. which is about an opera singer named Susan Graham .

User:BU Rob13 you can consider yourself double-dog dared to create an encyclopedia article that people could actually learn something from, and not just a string of commercial dreck that adds up to a steaming pile of "INNOVATION IS LIMITED TO BRAND EXTENSIONS" nothingness. And don't forget to Circle 108! Or is it 203. Oh drat I forget. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is a lot of dreck. I waded through it, as one is meant to do when doing a WP:BEFORE search. For an example of what coverage I found significant:

3 General Mills roster agencies pitch Golden Grahams account, Michael McCarthy and Trevor Jensen, ADWEEK Eastern Edition. 38.34 (Aug. 25, 1997): p3.
General Mills Moving Golden Grahams Back to DDB Needham, Trevor Jensen and Michael McCarthy, ADWEEK Midwest Edition. 38.44 (Nov. 3, 1997): p5.
Golden Grahams to relaunch with spoof cult campaign, Marketing Week; London23.29 (Aug 31, 2000): P. 6.
Kellogg Goes Crackers; Kellogg Faces Battle Over Breakfast Table as Cereal Partners Launches Golden Grahams, Hoggan, Karen. Marketing; London (May 2, 1991): 4.

All articles focus on the business and marketing aspects of Golden Grahams specifically, not all cereals under one company umbrella like the articles you quoted. The last one is probably the most significant. It takes up about 1.5 full pages in a newspaper and covers the brand's entry into the UK quite extensively as well as the success of the brand in the US. It could definitely be used to expand this article. Your "people could actually learn something from" standard is extremely subjective. You appear to think cereal is trivial and therefore doesn't get an article. That's just not true. Notability is determined by available sources, not the state of the article, and definitely not your opinion of what's encyclopedic (see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). I may circle back to improve this article, but I'm not going to do a huge rewrite two weeks before a major exam that will determine whether or not I stay in my PhD program... ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not what I think. And I expect an admin to do better than making assumptions about other people think, much less write that. In any case I am sorry that you think our mission is not to generate articles that people learn from.... and I wonder what you think this is all for. You can give that some thought in breaks from your PhD work. Good luck with that work! (and I mean that.) And you can pick up my dare and re-create this when you get time. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said the criterion you're going by is subjective, not wrong. We're obviously here to compile information so people can learn. The article as it stands already compiles information people can learn from in my opinion - that there is a brand of cereal with certain characteristics and a particular history. Based on your comments, you don't think learning that is "learning", which is why I said what I did. The article could have more information, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. Not all articles are going to yield the answers to life's great mysteries (though world hunger ... you never know). Documenting a significant brand is worthwhile in the opinions of many. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This page in WP has been a steaming pile of advertising shit since it was created in 2005 with the words "good stuff". I would say that is 12 years of evidence that nobody (yet) thinks it is worthwhile to document the history of this particular brand. In my own BEFORE (and yes I did a search, I write as I spit on your shoes), what I found was "INNOVATION IS LIMITED TO BRAND EXTENSIONS" nothingness. This is going to be deleted, and if you decide to give several hours of your own precious life to culling through sources and rehearsing a history of mundane marketing strategies to re-create this, your claim of "worthwhile"-ness might have been proven true. Of course you might find it to have been a complete waste of your time.

I will not be responding here further, as I have already given too much time to this. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of breakfast cereals Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Khit Thit Pyo May Season Special guest Artist Hanna Yuri". MRTV4 Channel.

[1] ttps://pluralplus.unaoc.org/2014-winners/deepening-communit

[2] ttp://deepeningcommunity.ca/blogs/community-animator/youth-win-un-award-deepening-community-music-video

[3] ttps://uwaterloo.ca/centre-peace-advancement/core-collaborators

[4] ttps://books.google.ca/books?id=VyO1DQAAQBAJ&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15&dq=record+tamarack+institute&source=bl&ots=Mc8SoiLaL1&sig=5XallRptT8h7VcBLzVflqVadIxI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-9sSzpqrVAhVLMz4KHW-7BBMQ6AEIWjAJ#v=onepage&q=record%20tamarack%20institute&f=false

[5] ttp://deepeningcommunity.ca/conversations

[6] ttp://hackathon.dmcbeam.org/human-potentials/care/calendar-folder/2014-january-25-care-meeting-folder/keynotechange.pdf

[7] ttp://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ejis/article/view/14517/11544

[8] ttp://www.horizons.gc.ca/eng

[9] ttp://www.comprehensivecommunityplanning.org/uploads/8/2/0/5/8205408/promising_directions_for_wicked_problems.pdf

[10] ttp://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4910433

[11] ttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/homelessness-upside-down-rethink-required-says-mark-holmgren-1.3628834

[12] ttp://www.rrstar.com/opinion/20170719/our-view-hitching-our-horses-to-same-wagon-to-become-top-25-city

[13] ttps://www.thespec.com/news-story/7220084-the-role-of-business-in-poverty-reduction/

[14] ttps://www.thespec.com/news-story/7089446-poverty-reduction-summit-to-be-held-in-hamilton/

[15] ttp://www.myprincegeorgenow.com/31662/city-prince-george-hosts-tamarack-institute-workshop-collective-impact/

[16] ttp://www.saultstar.com/2016/08/29/local-group-continues-poverty-reduction-task

[myanmar_top_artist-17] "Khit Thit Pyo May Season Special guest Artist Hanna Yuri". MRTV4 Channel.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]