Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 July	12 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 July 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Withdrawn by nominator. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Campaign—Russian meeting

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

~~Wrong year. Revelations were in July 2017, not July 2017. Wrong title. Meeting itself was in June 2016, not July 2017. Empty page. No content whatsoever to speak of beyond one sentence.~~ NOTE: Without prejudice to recreation or even a proper article itself. Sagecandor (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of expanding it. This just needs a page move, not a deletion. Don1182 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Keep", below. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. The OP is an argument for a move, not a delete. I have already moved the page to Trump Campaign—Russian meeting.Casprings (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothingburger of the day #4872. Call me up if anybody remembers this by Christmas. — JFG ^talk 22:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The point of this deletion nom is now moot. The page has been retitled. It has enough notable, sourced information to keep. It just needs expanding. Frankly, I don't think a page should be nominated for deletion within a matter of minutes after it is created, at least not without discussing with the person who created it. Sundayclose (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:NOTESAL MSM has been retracting nothingburgers as fast as the golden arches sells quarter pounders w/cheese. Hopefully WP won't get caught-up in the fake news syndrome that is synonymous with MSM pundits. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that Donald Trump Jr.'s tweets are "fake news"... DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between "pundits" and investigative journalists? This is not a "nothingburger" in any way and no chance of retraction since it is 100% true and Don Jr. confirmed it himself. Could you at least be informed with the basics before commenting in this discussion? You're embarrassing yourself. (Oh, and by the way, how does NOTESAL even apply here? This isn't a list!) NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The sky is blue." "FAKE NEWS!" NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're frustrated, but mind your decorum, please. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, arguments for deletion fail to persuade, contains reliably sourced content and has widespread notability. Darmokand (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election and Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, too soon to tell if this is a "nothingburger" or not, but the content is appropriate for these two articles, and unless there are more substantial (i.e. DOJ) developments, it doesn't need its own article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Power-enwiki; not clear that there's enough here to need its own article yet, and if there is, it can always be re-expanded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - who was the Russian "official" in this case? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney for the Russian government Natalia Veselnitskaya [1] (edit: The NY Times describe her as "a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer" the emails were one that used "Russian government attorney") WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, she denied it - "answered “no” when asked if she had ever worked for the Russian government." per Guardian. The contradictory stories are reason enough to not publish these hot off the press nothingburgers for at least 7 days to allow the true information to surface instead of depending on MSM who are propagandizing and prostituting for ratings. I hope whoever closes this AfD considers all of the fake news and unsubstantiated propaganda, much of which is just plain wrong. It's embarrassing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Kremin-connected is a much different and loose statement than an attorney for Russia. That's why I added in the edit to say that her(someone) working for the Russian government was just from the email. I don't see what about this is propaganda, The NYT and Guardian both indicate that she denies ever working for the Russian government, the emails released by DTjr was what claimed she was an attorney for them. I believe these articles are unnecessary as well. Everything should just be put into the investigation or Russian-links article, and stay there until one of them becomes worthy of a split, which may never happen. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what "fake news" are you talking about? The accurate NYT report that was confirmed by Trump Jr. himself? Please don't let your opinion on the "mainstream media" influence your judgment in this discussion. NYT is a reputable and reliable source. Though I agree she isn't exactly a Russian official, she has connections to the Russian gov and it should be appropriate enough for merger into the Links to Russian officials article, or probably the Russian interference article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - Put information for this in to Links between Trump associates and Russian officials WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under its new title. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment I've started a thread on the article talk page as to where this page should merge/redirect to, in case that is the outcome of this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following Trump Jr.'s email release, this isn't just a "nothingburger" anymore.. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 00:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This content is clearly notable, but figuring out how to nail this jello to the tree may not be easy. I hate all the names so far, including the current "meeting" name (as if that were the only one) Links between Trump associates and Russian officials is getting pretty full. If you can stuff the vast majority of the content in there, it might fit nicely - but that article is close to being split up in summary style. Perhaps Russian contacts of Trump family members would make a better subtopic, not sure ... I haven't followed these stories that closely. Just don't lock up the revisions behind some admin-only magic wand, this is an organizational matter. Wnt (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I am neutral on what the title ought to be, but this is such a complicated story to follow that having a wiki page develop with links, a timeline, illustrations, etc. has the potential to be of great benefit to wiki readers. KConWiki (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. For research on what is happening on a complicated story in comprehensive detail, perhaps you can consult some other wiki. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The event involved an American campaign meeting with a representative of a foreign government to help in a campaign. That is clearly WP:N and meets the WP:10YT.Casprings (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it should be discussed on the existing pages of Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election and Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for it's own article. Already covered in Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. PackMecEng (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FART. And could we please have a CSD "Trumpwittery" category? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the nominator's points are still applicable. This meets the inclusion criteria, "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." There is no question this will impact the ongoing investigation and the political climate. It has been widely covered in diverse sources, and updates and analysis have already begun. Mattflaschen - Talk 02:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also consider this as Withdraw nomination. Page has been significantly improved, including by Casprings. Title has been moved appropriately. Now encyclopedic amount of research on notable topic. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Same reasons already mentioned, and mentioned on every single other one of these knee-jerk articles: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FART, WP:10YT...take your pick.Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There are daily scandals with respective daily AfDs and for the most part, they get put in their place abruptly. This, however, has gone beyond the scope of what conventionally fits what is deleted and has only been escalating. Yesterday I would not have supported its inclusion and would have been content with it staying as a lengthy section of an article. But, not now that it's blown right open. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable for now. I would change the title though. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 04:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems to come from one source which is the NYT. Probably best to merged it with Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.F2Milk (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP micro-sub-page creation at its worst. This one brief meeting is adequately covered already in the subsection in the "Russian interference .." page, where it is one small part of the broader issue/story (albeit the latest piece of news therefore suddenly generating quite a bit of media noise). N-HH talk/edits 08:51, 12 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) 19:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Paterson

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

Contested PROD, which was removed due to what I hope was a misunderstanding (I'd used the catch-all term "footballer" to describe the subject, meaning "a person who plays one of the various codes of football", but apparently this is "wrong" when referring to someone who plays a code other than association football/soccer). That said, the subject of the article remains stubbornly non-notable per WP:NRU, which is the applicable standard regardless of the categories claiming he's a former rugby league player. The New Zealand team he played for isn't at the appropriate level of competition, and the two Japanese clubs ~~play in the Top League, which is not a fully professional competition~~ did not play at the appropriate level at the time he was signed with them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the two teams he played for in Japan are in Top League now, when he was with Coca-Cola Red Sparks they weren't in the Top League and he appears to have been at both at same time but can't find anything about game time or caps for each one. I can't find anything for him actually so don't think he meets notable WP:NRU. Just to correct you, Top League does meet WP:NRU according to point 2 as its in the lists here Professional Leagues NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 03:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted re that correction. Neither here nor there for the current debate, but the article on Top League indicates that most of the local players are amateurs (with the imports being professional). Not sure whether that's just one of those things or not, but it may be important for the relevant Wikiproject. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is another argument of if the league is at a high enough level but doesn't really affect this debate that the page should be removed.NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 20:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I'll leave that discussion for specialists to have elsewhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails GNG. Also an apparent COI by article creator. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What DerbyCounty said. Does not meet GNG notability requirements and does not meet NRU or RLN. Mattlore (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet sportsperson notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 14 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) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Small

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

WP:BLP of the leader of a minor political party, not referenced to any reliable source coverage. Leading a fringe party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, so to get him a standalone article it would need to be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about him in media to get him a WP:GNG pass — but this is referenced entirely to his self-published content about himself on his own website and that of the party. Primary sources do not assist in demonstrating notability, however — if he can't be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support an article, then he doesn't get to have a standalone biography separately from his name being listed in the article on the party. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without any sources that are not self-published, I support deletion. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable leader of a low level province level party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 14 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 Jacques Chirac#Assassination attempt. Redirects are cheap! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 02:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moh Chelali

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

Non-notable teacher and failed political candidate - WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and WP:TEACHER.

Chelali helped save the life of Jacques Chirac, which is interesting, but doesn't make him notable. If not delete, merge into Jacques Chirac#Assassination attempt. Madg2011 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Madg2011. I'm the original creator here, at a very different time (2005!) in Wikipedia's history when our notability standards were a lot looser than they are today. At the time, WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing yet, so his role in foiling the assassination attempt on Chirac was enough — but today, while he should still be mentioned in the article which contains the content on the event, it's not really grounds for a standalone biography of him anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:49, 12 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the worst

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

Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. See also this related AfD. (Note: It's been six years since the last AfD.) Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I don't agree, but consensus here is pretty clear. No point in dragging this out. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ninth? Really? I guess I need to read the other 8 (but not right now). In the meantime I'll say that I'd like to find a way to keep this but obviously I also hate indiscriminate lists. Is there a way we can get clear inclusion criteria on it? e.g. Two different rock solid RS references calling it one of the "worst of all time", "worst of the decade" or "worst of its genre" (for common genres only) or three different rock solid RS references calling it the "worst of the year". They would need to be serious criticism by serious critics, not just jokey side comments. I'm not saying those exact rules are what we want, just that maybe we could agree something with that degree of specificity and hold the line on it? Anyway, I'll give my proper !vote later, once I have read the old AfDs. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the ninth attempt to delete this article, but the last AfD was in 2011 and consensus can change over time. However, I believe that the arguments from previous AfDs still stand. The topic of worst movies ever made is clearly notable and passes WP:GNG. It has been the subject of dozens of books, hundreds of polls and thousands of news articles. This doesn't fail WP:LSC and isn't WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Criteria (that a film must be called the worst ever by multiple WP:RS) is much clearer today than it was during the previous AfDs, as a matter of fact there's a thread on the talk page right now that argues that it's too strict. There's even a list of films removed from the article.LM2000 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the comment above - if there's a way we can save this list, I think it's worth it. In-depth, well-sourced material that doesn't look like WP:OR (at least on its face). Certainly doesn't seem like WP:LISTCRUFT either. Comatmebro (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of films notable for negative reception, per my comments on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for as long as the entries are universally agreed upon by notable critics, scholars and the like to be the worst ever made, rather than just a mere list of things added out of blind contempt by random Wikipedia editors. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it doesn't fail WP:LSC, subjective lists are okay with reliable sourcing. Cjhard (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sheesh...WP:NOTAGAIN. Even in not looking at the previous 8 failed deletion attempts, this meets inclusion standards for WP:SALAT. I'm feeling that chill. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable topic and sourced to the hilt. MarnetteD|Talk 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That a film is considered "worst" by critics and the press, makes it de facto notable. One of my favorite films Ed Wood (film), directed by Tim Burton, which became a box office bomb and won two Academy Awards, was about a film considered "Worst Film Ever". I see that the items of the list have been carefully selected to be exactly what the title indicates, and properly sourced, so it is not an indiscriminate list. Also, do not rename as per Power~enwiki. The title is in line with the List of films considered the best. Hoverfish Talk 16:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Come on, 8 failed nominations and an active discussion on the talk page preferring "inclusion criteria setup" over deletion wasn't enough to deter this nomination? There's a precedent for these sorts of articles to exist. Efforts should go towards cleanup instead. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 12 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best

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

~~Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. See also this related AfD.~~ Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I don't agree, but consensus here is pretty clear. No point in dragging this out. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been nominated five times now and has been kept every single time ("snow" closes the last two times), so is there really any point regurgitating the same discussion yet again? What are the chances that a sixth discussion will produce a different result? Let's take each point one by one.

Unencyclopedic list: The list clearly meets the criteria at WP:LISTN which states "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." If you look at the sources used in the article there is no shortage of reliable sources discussing the greatest film, or a group of films that comprise the greatest according to some criteria. It is clearly a notable topic and therefore encyclopedic as determined by Wikipedia policy.
Fails WP:LSC: LSC requires that "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." The list complies with LSC. Each entry is accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source. In short, a film doesn't make the list unless there is a reliable source proclaiming the entry to be the "best" in its category.
No discernible uniform criteria: This is spelt out in the lead which states "This is a list of films voted the best in a notable survey—either by critics or by the public." There is even an edit notice to clarify the inclusion criteria: Template:Editnotices/Page/List of films considered the best
Evaluation appears entirely subjective. The best this and that will always be subjective, but it is not subjectively determined by Wikipedia editors. The subjectivity is confined to the polls and and surveys, and each source must comply with Wikipedia's policies, as with any other source. WP:LSC does not bar lists with subjective membership, but merely requires that they are dealt with appropriately (i.e. sources and no OR).
Subject is insanely broad. It is broad but not unmanageably so. There are a finite number of countries, a finite number of genres, and unsurprisingly a finite number of notable surveys and polls. That fact that there are larger film lists on Wikipedia than this one implies that the list is highly discriminate and the criteria laid down by the article is keeping the subject focused and manageable.

The upshot is that the list is notable, well sourced and has a highly discriminate criteria and there is no valid reason to delete it. I think the time has come for a moratorium on nominating this list for deletion; it just wastes everybody's time. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am definitely not for keeping crap in Wikipedia, and there is plenty, but this list is quite informative for a person who is interested in cinema and the film industry. I checked carefully the nominator's arguments, but Betty Logan's replies are all correct. I am also impressed that a list with such a title, that does sound very broad, is so discriminate, short and well sourced. Hoverfish Talk 01:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This list used to be indiscriminate and bloated but we have TompaDompa to thank for a terrific clean-up job. In truth I could understand why it was always getting nominated but all the outstanding issues have been addressed IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Betty Logan has answered each of the points quite cogently and I agree with Hoverfish about it being discriminate and well sourced. MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements made and the very cogent arguments offered by Betty Logan. WP:NOTAGAIN underscores the waste of time here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per all of the above and the previous discussions. I don't love the article, but move along, people. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 02:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows considered the worst

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

Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. See also this related AfD. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of the worst articles have survived many deletion attempts. This list only contains shows that have been called the worst by multiple sources. JDDJS (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator seems to have picked a ton of articles rather than nominating one and waiting for a precedent. Same arguments apply in all of them: nominator throws an indiscriminate list of tags hoping some will stick, but the topic is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 12 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) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oyin Adeyemi

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

Fails WP:GNG Darreg (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails the WP:GNG. The linked sources are almost pure puffery, to the point where they aren't WP:RS. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing remarkable about the subject to merit a stand alone article. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 05:10, 17 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. company spam, account now blocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eslami Machine Manufacturing Co.

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

Does not meet WP:NOTE. Advertising content, unlikely to find more valid sources. Article nominated and deleted per speedy deletion request in the past, see creators talk page. Probable user (User talk:Eslami.marzieh) COI considering Username and company name. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nomed it for the initial speedy, I searched at the time & there's no notable coverage. In addition to what's noted above about the COI in the username, they described it as a "business page" clearly against WP:NOT in addition to WP:PROMO. JamesG5 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT - GretLomborg (talk) 03:41, 12 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) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum Entertainment

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

Page was created and maintained by employees or officials from the company itself, under the two accounts AsylumEnt and Asylument818 (yes, two of them, either be blocked for sockpuppetry). Almost the entire article is unsourced, with only minor notability coming through a single source--Deadline.com--which is not enough for constructing significance for enwiki, wherefore the article fails WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, the entire filmography table is sourced through IMDb, violating WP:Citing IMDb, then again notability is not inherited. Lordtobi (✉) 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTADVERTISING. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, page was created by editors with a clear POV. Besides that, the article is unsourced and as the company was purchased in 2013, more sources are unlikely to be found or generated.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:55, 14 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) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Chmelevski

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Low-round draftee and having played just a single unheralded season of junior, fails NHOCKEY going away, no evidence of meeting the GNG other than routine sports coverage. Ravenswing 20:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage is routine sports reporting and also fails to meet any hockey notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 15 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) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Martin (Wikimedia)

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

IMO, Nathalie Martin does not meet the notability criterias, because no large-scale source focuses on her, and she is just mentioned in a few articles. NAH 18:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. His WD item would suffice. NAH 18:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was written by Punishar who is an employee of Mrs Martin. He didn't mention his conflits of interests and therefore doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nathalie Martin is CEO of a 10 people association... (Ok Wikimedia France that of course we are keen of) but that's not enough to create an article about her. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course. --Shev123 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably an A7 candidate, if it was any other organisation than Wikimedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This article was written by Punishar who is employee of Mrs Martin. --Ctruongngoc (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guil2027 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:PAID/WP:COI violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person does not meet the notability criteria. Furthermore the article has been created in violation of WP:COI. --Lebob (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Availability of reliable sources? Not at all! => deletion. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet our notability criteria. Edwardx (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability criteria. Trace (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the quality criterion. Malosse (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unknown with a self-made article ! Sg7438 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for few months. The very existence of this article (and the way it is written) is part of a controversy about how the "Wikimedia France Association" is functionning/dysfunctionning. A too early suppression would result into helping a controversial person to cover her tracks. This should not be done. Pldx1 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pldx1 If she doesn't pass WP:GNG, it shouldn't be kept. Your only reasoning for the keep seems to be an advocacy to spite Wikimedia France. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add, if RS consider this controversy notable fine, they do not. Thus it is not a notable controversy, thus she is not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not until the WMF has cleaned up the mess with WikimediaFrance, this article is a good example of the way some people in this association play with the rules, and not for the health of the chapter but their own purpose...--Cbyd (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unaware of "the mess with WikimediaFrance", can anyone fill me in? - GretLomborg (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone sent me a timeline of events (in French), and what I could make out (via Google Translate) sounds pretty bad. While I don't want to help someone up to no good cover their tracks, are there any options besides keeping this article to do that? This article is just one event in a constellation of behavior, could an investigation against the offending users be done? At a minimum its sounds like User:R.wi.go and User:Punishar could be sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I know how to initiate a sock-puppet investigation, but I don't if there's a way to initiate some kind of more-general WP:COI investigation. I'm probably not the person to do either of these things. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(for info) - An English version of that timeline can be found here. Not greatly relevant to the AfD but in case anyone else is wondering what's going on. The Land (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, but it looks less complete than the French one (probably for obvious reasons). It's missing the entry that discussed the bio that we're currently AfD'ing. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Check User tools for Sock-puppetry investigation can only check edit less than 3 months old... They can't be used to check any link here. Anyway it does not matter: this article should not be analysed in the context of anything linked with the Wikimedia France Association controversy. The only question that matters right now for Wikipedia is to check if the topic of this article (ie Nathalie Martin) is notorious enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. Both problems should not be mixed. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all A BIT UNSOURCED.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the SNG for Politicians. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 18 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) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals over 80 in Papal conclave, 2005

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

Per the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals over the age of 80 in Papal conclave, 2013. Merging to either the main conclave article or the list of cardinals who did participate would make little sense: not participating in conclaves upon turning 80 has been the standard practice after the reforms of Pope Paul VI following the Second Vatican Council, and these individuals are not notable as a group for not doing something. At most, it could be mentioned in their individual articles, but even then I don't think it would be required. Not doing something that one is not expected to do isn't notable for an article on its own or noteworthy for inclusion in another article in most cases. Additionally, as it stands, the article is entirely unsourced. My suspicion having done work with conclaves on Wikipedia would be that the origin source is the Salvador Miranda page on cardinals, which is self-published. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Something. Something. List of birds of southern Florida who have never been mascots for sports teams TimothyJosephWood 18:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals over the age of 80 in Papal conclave, 2013. PRODable on that basis, too, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 11 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. Meets WP:GNG per the new sourcing etc. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 02:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Davis

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

While he most likely will be notable, he's not there yet. All he has done was co-direct (not even direct) a film that hasn't even come out yet. JDDJS (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm still in progress on expanding the entry but there's plenty here to meet GNG as well as NARTIST. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have also begun a list of additional sources to be incorporated on the entry's talk page. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whose Streets? which he co-directed is notable (Rotten Tomatoes lists 10 critics reviews[2] and the article notes additiona press coverage). While that means he passes WP:CREATIVE, if that was all he had done, there might still be a case for merging (not deleting). But his art projects have also received press coverage. I don't understand grounds for calling for deletion: it's clear that he's done other things, covered in the press, and the film has been screened and reviewed several times. When discussing such a politically controversial topic, it's important to rely on the facts and policies and not make unsubstantiated claims. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Colapeninsula. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:23, 12 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 lonelygirl15. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh Flinders

AfDs for this article:

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

Seemingly unnotable-- most of the information is referring to insignificant short films featured at relatively minor festivals. Being one of three people to create lonelygirl doesn't seem notable, and the fact is that this reads like a promo piece

Note: Previous deletion nomination was from 2009 and was apparently tainted from being posted on a lonelygirl fansite.
Note 2: The other two creators of lonelygirl have pages which redirect to the article of a company.

‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to lonelygirl15, the most prominent work. I don't see anything else being that notable. It appears he left the group before EQAL was formed so redirecting to EQAL doesn't make sense. Nothing else that is notable. Would be okay with re-creating article if he has other notable works that aren't sourced by self-promotional sites. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to lonelygirl15 per AngusWOOF. GretLomborg (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the two above users. Sounds good to me. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 12:38, 12 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Spirit (2018 film)

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

See film notability guidelines. This is an unreleased film in production. Unreleased films in production are only notable if the production itself is notable. This article does not indicate anything notable about the production. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed an unreleased film that is currently in principal production but it is a notable production. There is no way to prove otherwise because it is a film. It has multiple references backing it up, that makes it notable. It is notable as being the directorial debut of actor Max Minghella and as being a film starring Elle Fanning. It is notable being as it is a film in principal production. TheMovieGuy (talk)

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

Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by coverage from reliable sources. Robert McClenon, a very simple search engine test can show you if a topic has received coverage from sources like Variety, Deadline.com, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. Per WP:BEFORE, please perform this check before nominating an article for deletion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik's reasoning: You should read the article first, and assess the sources before nominating for deletion. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a film production confirmed as having started filming and having wide coverage (thanks Erik) to meet inclusion criteria as set by WP:NFF. WP:SNOW anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:25, 12 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. passes GNG, sources are reliable (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Wilkerson

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

This is a vanity article with promotional links . The specified person is one of many youtubers DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's supposed reasons (vanity, one of many, etc) are not grounds for deletion. Wilkerson is a successful YouTuber with millions of views on YouTube with plenty of coverage in traditional media which are reliable and in-depth, with coverage of her life and her projects such as in Popular Mechanics and also here with coverage here and even international coverage and also here in Australia and in Woodworkers Journal. Notable person who clearly meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been profiled in RS for her work. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources submitted are substantial, all just a few sentences saying someone showed how to do something.--Alizaa2 (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Mechanics, LA Daily News, and Lifehacker Australia are reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:34, 17 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandor Clegane

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

No sources verify the real-world notability WP:NFICT of this character. The sources in this artcile verify the notability of actor Rory McCann, but not of the character in itself. Sources which WP:V verify the general real-world notability WP:GNG of this character must neither be primary (like Martin's books or SPS by HBO). Therefore this character may be an unsuitable subject for a standalone article. Suitable sources which verify the GNG of this character must be secondary, reliable and have this character (not the actor) as the primary subject of a chapter or whole article. AadaamS (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I see dozens of scholarly references on even a cursory search using Google Scholar. What does WP:BEFORE mean, again? Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, my own cursory search resulted in WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the character. SC being mentioned in a scholarly work is not enough, SC must be the main topic for a significant amount of text. AadaamS (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:TRIVIALMENTION here [3], or for that matter here [4] or here [5]. Care to re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are 44 Game of Thrones characters listed on Template:A Song of Ice and Fire. I support a merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters over deleting, but have no opinion on keep v. merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, a merge to the list article would of course be the best option, preferable to both keep & delete. Plus a redirect of course. Notable characters are figures like Superman or Sherlock Holmes. Those characters are generally notable. AadaamS (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is unsupported by Wikipedia notability policy. Perhaps you should not be nominating fictional elements for deletion, AadaamS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, perhaps I should. AadaamS (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And last year, AadaamS, you had something like two deletions go through (and two redirects) on something like a dozen fictional element nominations? That's weak sauce, brah. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brah? Your underwear is your business but its content it should not be used for typing. A couple of those that didn't go through weren't demonstrated to live up to the GNG, like this one. Fanboys are many in enwp and they protect unworthy articles. AadaamS (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you nominated Serena van der Wooten for deletion even though there is a chapter on the character here [6] among many other reliable sources discussing the character. I get the feeling that you're not very good at this, and referring to SisterTwister and Deathlibrarian as "fanboys" (the Keep voters in the case you chose to cite) is just loopy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serena van der Woodsen you mean. You are frequently using bullying and rudeness to get your way, but you will overcome those deficiencies given a lot of time. You, Deathlibrarian and SisterTwister all fail to comprehend what general notability means. It doesn't mean that a character is notable among GOT or GG fans, it means a character is notable to people who have never watched GOT or GG. AadaamS (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I'm not a GG (obviously) or GoT series fan. I'm not a fan of certain other books or shows, either, but when scholarly secondary literature exists on the characters, then those characters are notable, period. It's not a matter of whether you or I recognize (or can spell) their names, as non-fans; once again you have advanced a complete misunderstanding of the WP:GNG. WP:N is not reserved for the likes of Sherlock Holmes and Superman, which is literally what you argued above: it depends on whether or not WP:RS exist. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "and have this character (not the actor) as the primary subject of a chapter or whole article." is a horrid misreading of WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Newimpartial found. AadaamS, it would be reasonable for you to withdraw the nomination at this point, as you've misunderstood notability policy and failed to find a couple of articles that would have met (or come close to having met!) your erroneously strict standards in the first place. If you're unconvinced, I can dig for more... Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic clearly passes GNG. Cjhard (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article clearly passes GNG and is well sourced from many reliable sources. - AffeL (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why this is has even been nominated for deletion as it clearly passes notability guidelines, most pertinently GNG. A lot of these character articles could be improved, yes, but that doesn't mean that they meet the guidelines for deletion. This article should be kept. Somethingwickedly (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article should ultimately be merged, but keep for now I don't agree with the other "keep"s on the sources supposedly dug up by Newimpartial granting notability. Of the three they linked, one is a passing mention of the character being alive in season six of the TV show (no real-world notability or interesting information besides in-universe plot and what was then rumour and speculation), and one is a bare link to GBooks entry, which when searching the name "Sandor" doesn't bring up much other than passing mentions of the Hound in plot summaries. That leaves one source that may or may not demonstrate notability. At least two of the "keep"s had already demonstrated their heavy bias against deleting GOT character articles elsewhere: Jclemens' remark is problematic -- accusing someone of not understanding "the notability policy" and requesting that they withdraw their nomination on that basis is actually kinda funny; AffeL ... well, probably shouldn't even be allowed edit at this point -- he has been trolling and making personal attacks against anyone who questions the notability of these characters for over a month (if not much longer), has engaged quite rampantly in OR, edit-warring and BLP-violation, and his !vote here probably would have been cast whether or not there was any valid reason for it. But I think this article should be dealt with in the same mass AFD as the rest of them GOT character articles, and the nominator did miss the mark on this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in spite of the comment immediately above, the businessinsider source is directly concerned with the subject and speaks directly to notability: how much stronger documentation is there, for the notability of a fictional character, than businessinsider reporting on the character's survival in the TV adaptation? And the google book reference contains one essay which "addresses the topic significantly and in detail", which is the exact definition of significant coverage. Whatever Hijiri's issues might be about other editors who are participating in this discussion, those issues have nothing to do with the topic of this AfD, and indeed really ought to be ~~struck from the record.~~ Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing a gross misunderstanding of GNG, in particular its requirement for significant coverage. The businessinsider source discussing the character's survival in the TV series is only useful for making the claim that, prior to the release of season 6, people were speculating that the character was still alive. GNG is about having enough sources to write an article, not having some arithmetic number of sources just to "demonstrate notability", and so no sources that include nothing but plot information -- which we are technically allowed cite to primary sources, as much as I might resent that -- can be used for GNG purposes. And, just like on the Tony Chang AFD, you are behaving disruptively by requesting that I strike my comment just because you don't like what I wrote -- indeed, your use of a passive verb makes it look like you are condoning/provoking vandalism of my comment by someone else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri, I am asking you again, politely: please stop with the off-topic comments, and strike your own comments when they are off-topic. ~~Nobody will do it for you.~~

The businessinsider source contributes to the notability of the fictional subject, by demonstrating that independent, reliable sources find the subject worthy of treatment. None of the sources I are limited to plot information - the businessinsider source, for example, discusses both the fan theories and reception of the plot developments, which is not "nothing but plot information" as you describe. The critical sources I provided are among many that provide interpretation and analysis of the character.

Please, Hijiri; stick to the facts, and stop the wall of text. Newimpartial (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your claiming that my comments to the effect that two of the other "keep" !votes should be treated with the appropriate weight (not "stricken", mind you) given how both users preemptively stated that they would likely oppose any AFD on a GOT character article is off-topic and should be ignored, but that your own comments about me to the exact same effect are valid is ... well, it's why I am frankly sick of interacting with you. Kindly leave me alone and stop bludgeoning every discussion in which you participate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't, and my contribution history bears that out. In this discussion, for example, I only responded to the nom and to you - who named me explicitly in your post, even though I was observing voluntary IBAN protocols so that we would not irritate each other any more. But it seems that you just can't help naming me or replying to my posts. Your WP:BLUDGEON looks Australian to me.

Do you really not see why it would be preferable to restrict your comments to editors' actual interventions in the AfD, rather than applying ad hominem arguments based on interactions elsewhere? That is all I want. Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You bludgeoned the hell out of the Tony Chang AFD, and here you would undoubtedly do the same if anyone were supporting the proposed deletion. In fact you are so desperate to bludgeon something that you are bludgeoning a "Keep for the moment" !voter. I have no reason to assume the rest of your contribution is any different.

And no, my comment is not ad hominem. Editors who should not even be here (they were allowed back from an indef block on condition that they cause no more disruption ever again, and they have caused no end of disruption in the last two months alone) would be one thing, if they hadn't preemptively stated that they would oppose any AFD on an article in this category, and Jclemens, while they certainly have a right to express their opinion, should be recognized as having already shown a poor understanding of GNG in relation to an article closely linked to this one in the very recent past.[7]

And then you showed the exact same poor understanding in this AFD, immediately above here. The simple fact is that sources that only include plot summary (and/or information irrelevant to this particular fictional character) cannot be used to write a standalone article, regardless of how "famous" the character might be and how many articles you can dig up that illustrate that fame.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles I cited above are limited to a plot summary; all of them provide additional discussion of the significance of the fictional character. Which I already stated above, and which you would know had you read them. Also, please don't cite your own one-sided arguments in making an ad hominem challenge to another editor. It's poor form. Stick to the actual discussion here.

I will not read the rest of your wall of text, Hijiri. Drop the WP:BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the last thing I write here since, like I said two replies ago, I am sick of dealing with you. One of the sources you found was a bare GBooks link: I had to search for "Sandor" myself and the only things I found were plot details; another was an article speculating on the character's then-forthcoming return in the show with very little to offer beyond what could already be cited directly to the show itself; only one was good for GNG purposes.

Nothing I wrote was an ad hominem argument: you could claim that it was off-topic (and I would disagree as I did above), but how exactly could I be making ad hominem arguments to delete the article, when I am not even arguing for the article to be deleted? I added necessary clarification of previous discussions related to this AFD, which you clearly have not read.

And your accusing me of BLUDGEON is pretty laughable. If I wanted to BLUDGEON this or any other discussion, I would start posting strings of comments beneath every comment I disagreed with, and I have not done this either here or in the Tony Chang AFD, so it really isn't clear what you are referring to.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the walls of text; could I make that any more clear? Also, your ad hominem arguments refer to the (perfectly sound) contributions of two editors here, which you want to dismiss based on disagreements you have had with them elsewhere. That is a perfect example of ad hominem - you should stick with discussing what is actually written in this discussion.

The google book contains a whole essay that opens with and contains significant critical discussion of Sandor; that is not anything like "plot details", and neither is the audience reception analysis included in the businessinsider piece. Based on this evidence, I would question your reading comprehension. And if you think that these kinds of discussion do not contribute to WP:N, then I'm afraid your judgement on the matter should not be trusted, either. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the discussion, the article should not be merged. Calibrador (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he already died once, no need to kill his article again Mardetanha (talk) 09:18, 17 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) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean 'Seanizzle' Reid

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

Big claims of notability; all mouth and no trousers in my opinion. No decent references and reeks of promotional puffery. TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the creator's talk one can see that this article has already been deleted and a draft of this article was denied. A salt would be advised if this keeps up. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure WP:PROMO with no citations to back up the claims of his "unique" beats and philanthropy for which apparently he is "best known". Irie Jams appears to be a local radio station in Jamaica, 21st Hapilos Digital is a distribution and marketing company (which also has a Wikipedia article, despite dubious notability). Richard3120 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Missing references to back anything up. The only independent coverage I could find are several trivial articles in his local paper (The Jamaican Observer) that confirm existence rather than notability. Not enough. Also, it appears to be a recreation of an article that was previously deleted by nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tons of huge claims with no sources presented to back it up. Doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Article is also based on a draft that was rejected 3 days ago at WP:AFC. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 13 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 Yahoo!-owned sites and services § Closed/defunct services. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthas.com

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

merge with Yahoo!. nothing is here. easily can be done. Light2021 (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Company was acquired by Yahoo! 17 years ago, so finding new sources is unlikely, not to mention that all of Yahoo!'s assets are scattered now. No reason for this article to exist. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services § Closed/defunct services. Source searches are not providing much to qualify a standalone article. This is a valid search term, so a redirect would be functional as per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxpanda

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

blatant promotion on Wikipedia. its not brochure or blog for products as it has been done here. No notable coverage on media. Light2021 (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant mention in sources cited qualifies article for failing WP:CORPDEPTH. A g-search turned up no meaningful results not already cited. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTYELLOW — fortunavelut luna 07:39, 19 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) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheen Javed

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

cited sources are not reliable enough to be used here. fails to meet WP:ACTORS and basic WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to find any source per WP:RS. Article fails basic WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Severe lack of sourcing, a quick search does not turn up anything notable. Does not further the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:37, 12 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 keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. An Afd is not required for such a merge, as stated by the closing administrator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMC Dine-In Madison 6 (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Cinemas

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

Discussion on AMC Dine-In Madison 6 page suggests this page should be merged with Sundance Group.

This was a mistake. I meant to merge, and I thought it involved deletion. CR85747 (talk) 11:45, 11 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) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Josephs

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

Subject has some press mentions from last decade in his role at the National Society for Epilepsy, but nothing that looks like significant coverage to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: sources do not give WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NPERSON. DrStrauss talk 11:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not have significant RS coverage.PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article by himself does not make him a "leading expert" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 13 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. In absence of any nomination rationale, the merits of the keep !votes couldn't be judged and the article may be deemed to have been procedurally kept. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 02:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kent RO Systems

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

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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article about a notable Indian company passes WP:GNG Anoptimistix (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a public company with a 40% market share, has some reliable sources in the article but adding more would help with WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very well known water purifying system in India. If you ask any Indian about a water purifier, they will first say Aquaguard (by Eureka Forbes) and the second name they will say is Kent. It used to advertise on TV very frequently and I still remember that advertisement featuring Hema Malini and Esha Deol. I don't know why this has been nominated for deletion.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Article about a product which is not a encyclopedia product. As per user DreamLinker, tv ad by X, which not mean this article fulfill Wikipedia criteria. Wikipedia is not for promotion of a product. 117.212.121.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding edit was the first Wikipedia edit by this ip Atlantic306 (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 117.212.121.160. Kent is a company like Eureka Forbes. It is very well known in India and I think people would like to read about it. If Eureka Forbes can be included, Kent should be too.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:44, 17 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 Noonmati. The keep !votes(one of which resulted from the article creator) failed to put forward any suitable argument/sources for inclusion. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 02:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Jyotinagar

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

An unremarkable residential area of a suburb of a city. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:GEOFEAT. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know what evidence Wikipedia needs for inclusion of this locality. Also what process is involved after which it is confirmed this locality is to be excluded?- Nikish Das — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikish21 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most populated places should have an article on Wikipedia. Indian place referencing is handicapped as much is not online or not in English. As long as the content is based on others writings, even if it is a signboard displayed in public, then it is free of original research. The area appears big enough to warrant an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City —> Suburb —> residential area.

Talking about India, almost every set of 20 houses has a name in India. Usually ending with "Nagar" among Colony, Mahallah, and few names. As all of these places have houses, they are populated. You will not believe my statements, and I am not asking you to. But I insist you to visit wikimapia, and search for "Parbhani" (it is a city) then zoom in anywhere that you want. You will see that my statements are correct. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND, a clearly defined populated place. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unfortunately, as this is not a well defined area, but rather a residential colony around a small road. Perhaps other editors may not be familiar, but in India, what we call a "colony" is usually a locality or neighbourhood. This is a small locality of Guwahati. The spelling is also incorrect and I cannot find sources for any of the information. The content seems to be largely written based on personal knowledge. However, I will ask the creator of the article to find some sources and see if it can be added to another suitable article.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with what Graeme Bartlett has said. I personally stay in this neighbourhood and I can confirm I know much more details about this place. I don't consider that this is a small area of 20 houses as on an estimate 300 or above houses is there is this neighbourhood. We have our own developement comittee assigned for this place developement since it is large enough. We have 13 byelanes one well developed Business area(Chowk). We do have a Hindu temple named after this place. Since I have created this article It is completely based on my personal observations and reality, I am new to Wikipedia any guidance will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikish21 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Usernamekiran,Kind Tennis Fan,Graeme Bartlett,AlessandroTiandelli333 I had a discussion with Nikish21 where I suggested that a merge to Noonmati could be done, so as to preserve content. [8],[9],[10]. Although Nikish21 prefers a standalone article, there are some reasons I would prefer to merge and preserve the content.
- Nikish21 has written the content based on his own experiences. He has also contributed a photo, I think it is good for Wikipedia to keep the contributions. So instead of delete, it would be good to merge
- Pub Jyotinagar is a small "colony". The road is approx 900m long on Google maps (max area 1km^2). A similar sized (slightly larger) colony such as "Dwarka Sector 10" in Delhi doesn't have its own article, but is mentioned in the main Dwarka, Delhi article. Other colonies of a similar size don't have their own articles as well.
- Pub Jyotinagar doesn't have its own post office, but is under the Noonmati post office.
- The content in this article can easily fit at Noonmati and be described under "colonies" subheading. That will preserve the information. If there is more information available about Pub Jyotinagar, it can be added there or later this article can be restored.
I feel a merge would be good here instead of a delete or keep.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn I agree with DreamLinker. If somebody has something to say, including Kind Tennis Fan, kindly make your argument before this discussion being closed. I request to the closing editor to not to close the discussion before seven days from being relisted. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to decide here itself whether we go for a standalone article (keep) or for a merge. Rather than another discussion on the talk, it would be easier to discuss and decide right here.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Noonmati which is the larger locality of which it is a part of. My reasons are already stated above in the proposal.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with DreamLinker. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Even though nominator for deletion, I change from default delete to merge.

@DreamLinker: Thats what I meant, to decide it in this discussion. Thats why I asked for more time ;) —usernamekiran(talk) 02:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (De-boldened dup !vote) I still firmly believe to keep this article as a standalone. Because in my City the average area of neighbourhood is this. Noonmati is a very large area do we have various neighbourhoods like Choonsali, Ganeshnagar, Pub Jyotinagar , Jayanta Nagar which are itself large enough. So as a local person over here My opinion is to keep it and not merge-Nikish21 (talk) 15:08, 18 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) 19:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aijaz Ahmad Mangi

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

Not many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. I don't think interviews make you notable. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this autbio. i couldn't find anything in RS on him so he fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly started as an autobiography, sources are weak, notability isn't established. DrStrauss talk 11:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conducting interviews of notable people does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 12 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Echo

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

Contested PROD. Vocalist for several bands, but does not meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although she has performed with a number of bands, she fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple sources. I have just added a couple to the article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead vocalist of two different notable bands. Therefore no appropriate redirect target. To conclude that she is not notable requires us to believe that the critical coverage of the bands' work mentions the vocals trivially or not at all. This is remarkably implausible, and the burden of proof must be placed on the editors who in effect are asserting this most unlikely argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:49, 11 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) 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Luković

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD appears to have been kept based off of Assertion of notability votes, but did not actually supply any references or sources that would in fact pass WP:GNG. The assertion was that since the subject played on a national team, he is therefore notable, even though the sport specific guideline, WP:NHOCKEY (which itself is still subject to GNG even if a player meets one of the criteria) specifically calls out only the top division national teams to have presumed notability. The player mostly played in the third tier of the IIHF championship, not for The World Championship, just to earn promotion (which they earned in 2008–09, but only up to the second tier before being relegated back down again). As shown in his stats sheet, he has also not played in a league that has presumed notability as researched and documented in the league assessment for presumed player notability, an essay written to document leagues that have been known to be covered well enough in media that GNG-relevant sources should be able to be found.

For a similarly disproved Assertion of Notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogdan Janković (2nd nomination). Yosemiter (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I suppose I can't rail too much at people being unfamiliar with sports notability criteria when those who are declined to participate in the AfD, but both of those Keep voters are veteran editors who should at least have troubled themselves to glance at the pertinent criteria first. Ravenswing 13:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and sport notability guidelines. I went to the Serbia national ice hockey team article and he isn't even a player anymore - apparently he's now an assistant, so depending on where his coaching career takes him, we may revisit an article down the road, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Participating in lower tiers of IIHF events does not meet the notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 17:39, 15 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) 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander Baloch

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

Not many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this self promotional autobio. it was created by the subject himself Special:Contributions/Sikanderbaluch. i couldn't find anything in RS on him so he fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty blatant self-promotion, and as it stands should be deleted as an unreferenced BLP. The references provided are the subject's own twitter, a television network's homepage, and a youtube video of an interview, not a reliable secondary source in the bunch.PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:31, 11 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) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Bois

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

Not seeing the necessary coverage and appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any individual awards and not playing in a well covered league for long enough to presume notability. He played in a non-notable overseas tournament as part of being a college conference All-Star (not an NCAA All-American), but I am not seeing much coverage on that either. Yosemiter (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another hockey player who does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet any hockey notability criteria and lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. He didn't even make the WCHA all conference team. Papaursa (talk) 17:30, 15 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) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Beaudoin

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any individual awards and not playing in a well covered league for long enough to presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't a person who has played for the Canadian men's national ice hockey team presumed to be notable? Lourdes 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Yes, but only if he was on the senior national team while playing for The World Championship per NHOCKEY #6 (or in the Olympics, but that would also pass NOLYMPICS). I have found no evidence that ever played during the 1997 or 1998 tournaments. Based off the routine sources that I found, he played in exhibition games against teams such as Belarus, Japan, and Switzerland. Yosemiter (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one I am a little more torn on, as he was on the NTL team when it was a permanent travelling team. It is something we have never accounted for. I would probably rate it as around AHL level but if no sources can be found that is moot. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my discussions and clarifications provided by nominator above. Lourdes 00:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. My search did not find his name in the list of players who actually were on the Canadian team for the world championships and exhibitions appearances are insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:37, 15 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) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ValueLabs

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

Press coverage. Non-notable awards such as CIO Review. Highly promotional in nature, only purpose of this article to promote it. Corporate Spam. Wikipedia is not a directory. Light2021 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just another outsourcing company, of which there are dozens. Copy includes puffery such as:

...global IT services and consulting company that provides custom information technology and business consulting services! Etc.

Basically, corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SOAPBOX. FITINDIA 09:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 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) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aniq Naji

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

Not many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. i couldn't find anything in RS on him so he fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. --Saqib (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability for this boradcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 14 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 Outer Plane. So Why 09:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Outer Plane. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep while initially included in Dungeons & Dragons, it has later been released into the SRDs for both D20 and Pathfinder. In the 30+ years since its creation, it has made it into TV tropes and other popular culture content. Note also that this is an extremely hard topic to research, given the plethora of other uses for the base word (yes, including that 70's game with the broomstick...) Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The D20 SRD is not independent of Wizards of the Coast, who own D&D. Pathfinder is independent, but it's an open question as to whether the inclusion of a feature in Pathfinder adds notability to the feature as it appeared in D&D. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Like the GPL, once something is put out for anyone to use, it is no longer a dependent on the creating organization. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not clear to me what you disagree with. If you believe that the D20 SRD is independent of WotC, please provide some evidence; I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that they published it. (If you believe that they published it but that it's still independent, I'm afraid you've lost me.) If you think it's a settled matter that inclusion in Pathfinder adds notability to this as an element of D&D, I'd appreciate it if you could point to the guideline/policy on which you're relying. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. The article content is largely unsourced original research. What's cited is to in-universe publications, such as: Gygax, Gary (1978). Players Handbook. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge, unless some decent third-party sources can be identified. I confess I'm struggling to understand Jclemens's arguments. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outer Plane or delete given the lack of notability. I find Jclemens' argument to be extremely weak. Also, TV Tropes (while I greatly appreciate that site) does not support notability as it is user-generated. Aoba47 (talk) 14:28, 18 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) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quake (Transformers)

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor character across all incarnations, not worth redirecting. Anyone searching this term will be familiar enough with the fiction to find what they're looking for in another article. The material here is best suited for fansites. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. I've no objection to a merge/redirect if a suitable target can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 18 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 09:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florent Andorra

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

Won an award as part of a team; doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator.Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Rrachet (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:30, 11 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) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Grochola

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Won a notable award, but the award was for the whole team. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any in-depth coverage of this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:00, 18 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) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zazen (band)

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:GNG. - TheMagnificentist 16:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band, fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:BAND. A WP:BEFORE search indicates a distinct lack ofpersistent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. — fortunavelut luna 09:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. FITINDIA 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks notablitiy. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:04, 11 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) 19:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Hussain

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

Not many WP:RS to verify her biography per WP:V. No notable award or major achievement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. she's an anchorperson but i couldn't find anything in RS on her so she fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing to show notability. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 12 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) 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mishal Bukhari

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

Not many WP:RS to verify her claims in this biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. look like an autiobio. i couldn't find anything in RS on her so she fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also is such a WP:PROMOTION violation that it should be WP:TNTed. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:18, 13 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.

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of asanas. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uttana Shishosana

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

Procedural nomination as 68.151.25.115 can not create AfDs, being an IP, and refuses to create an account. His/Her reasoning is "the only reliable source may be yogajournal.com. articles need 2 in order to be notable" [11]. I don't care one way or the other on this AfD. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:10, 27 June 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 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator has prodded and opened deletion discussions on many articles in the last week. I do not believe they have attempted WP:BEFORE on these articles. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of asanas, where this belongs. --Lockley (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 11 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 Phil K. And redirect. The !votes to delete weere to some extent countered by the possibility of a reliable source demonstrating notability; conversely, ther were no !Votes to keep the article. Ultimately tere was no demonstrable consensus to delete, so, per WP:ATD, closing as M&D. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 07:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Tolerance Recordings

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

Non-notable record label. - TheMagnificentist 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now. This may or may not be notable. Label was in operation for some time, and did release music by notable artists, so it may be a notable record label per NMUSIC#5. According to [12] it was "highly influential" but I don't know enough about the genre to know if this is a reliable source or not. Having a hard time finding sources that would satisfy GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phil K: one of the label's owners, a solo artist and half of a duo on the label.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article fails to establish notability. It lists no sources and significant coverage is likewise not found. http://inthemix.junkee.com does not sound like a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, trivia. Kierzek (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect/merge to Phil K?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect, there is a source confirming Phil K is or was a part owner. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:16, 11 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. No participation in 24 days, no prejudice on renomination (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher "Tito JustMusic" Trujillo

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:12, 11 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 07:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teargas & Plateglass

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

Non-notable musicians. Fail WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. - TheMagnificentist 15:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. So Why 12:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about pass WP:GNG with coverage in Miami New Times, Impose (magazine), Exclaim!, AllMusic, and briefer mentions in other publications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has now been shown. SL93 (talk) 02:19, 12 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 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Newnham

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

Vanity page for an economist, sourced only to connected sources. Puffed up list of accomplishments; Global Shaper, Ambassador for Australia Day, Young Western Australian of the Year (Recognises the personal and professional endeavours of a young person aged 18 – 25 years who has fostered a significant positive change in their life and the lives of others in the community.), Saïd Business School prize. Non of these are notable, or have received attention in independent, reliable sources Mduvekot (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about this: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]

View articles clearly shows it is within scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averagejoe2017 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:per nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a CV on an nn individual; "Chief Economist of the Chamber of Commerce" is hardly a claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a resume. The article doesn't point to any distinctions or achievements that would show notability, it's basically just a CV.PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like it should be on linkedin. Just a CV. I think there is sufficient secondary sources for WP:NEXIST, but this article needs to start again WP:TNT. Aoziwe (talk) 14:00, 15 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) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Muhammad Anwar

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

Not many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:WRITER. Greenbörg (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. seems like an autbio. i couldn't find anything in RS on him so he fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 11 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 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tranby Croft (band)

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

I have been unable to find information in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate that this is a well-known band. The mention in the Book of Lists is less than one sentence. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing claimed in the article hands them an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of reliable source coverage about them in media — "mentioned in The Book of Lists" is not a notability claim at all! — and I can find no evidence of the media coverage needed to improve this article at all. Even on a ProQuest search for deep pregoogle media coverage, I get just two hits on their name, of which one is a WP:ROUTINE concert listing and the other is about the Tranby Croft affair, not the Tranby Croft band. So there's simply no locatable evidence that they pass any notability criteria at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speculation and assertion by themselves are insufficient to demonstrate notability. — fortunavelut luna 08:00, 19 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. @Groovy12: If you wish to have a copy of this to work on it in your userspace until notability can be established, leave me a message. So Why 07:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortanix

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

Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: It might have some references but Wikipedia is not a company listing site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Start-up funding announcements and brief proposition coverage are insufficient to demonstrate attained encyclopaedic notability. My searches are not finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Kudpung correctly points out, Wikipedia is not a business directory. The sourcing that is available is not enough to make an article out of because the subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH in all of its coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- run-of-the-mill cloud security company, of which there are dozens. Nothing stands out about this one. Wikipedia is not a directory listing of funding news for unremarkable startups; K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I authored the article because the company is building tools for Intel SGX, a major breakthrough in computer security (https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/086.pdf). Google for more details. Fortanix itself is legit company because of funding event. WP:CORPDEPTH is provided by - WSJ, Intellyx, Foundation, finSME. These reports are spread over months and point to different stories. Additionally, keeping Fortanix article will be useful for people looking for info and consistent with keeping other articles such as Advania, Bracket Computing, Compose.io, iland, Firebase, ForgeRock, HashiCorp, Loader.io, Lunacloud, mLab. These are all in same category and reported with same level of coverage. Groovy12 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Th sources you cite above are all brief reports of the same thing. That is not in-depth, independent, coverage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, please take another look at Intellyx. It's unrelated to the briefing and appeared in Feb. Also, Foundation is in-depth. Again, if I apply the same standard as other articles, this could be considered WP:CORPDEPTH. Groovy12 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy12, you are the creator of this article, right? This is a listing entry. That's not what Wikipedia is for. You can have a hundred sources and it's still a listing. It doesn't make a claim to anything that justifies an entry in an encyclopedia. The article itself has no CORPDEPTH. The company just isn't important. It's only important to the person who wants to increase that company's market presence - that's not what Wikipedia is for either. We don't take other articles into consideration - perhaps they should be deleted too: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, yes, obviously I created the article. I take offense with your statement "It's only important to the person who wants to increase that company's market presence" that insinuates I have some ulterior motive. I've been contributing (both content and $$) to wikipedia for at least last 10 years. Obviously, you and other admins volunteer much more time and energy than me to this cause and I applaud you for that. But, this experience has been bitter.

If the company is worth an article, which obviously I believe, I'm doing useful work to humanity even if I create a small page on the company. Others can and should subsequently contribute to it. I feel that you seem to have made your mind that this article shouldn't exist and have been finding new reasons for that

   - in the beginning, you said it's not enough references. I added them.
   - then, you said it's just a listing. I explained why Intel SGX is a big deal and this is legit company. I added how similar coverage has been enough for other companies.
   - then, you said the references all point to same event. I explained why that's not the case.
   - now, you are saying the articles for other companies also shouldn't exist.
   - now, you are questioning my motivation.

For someone like me who is not really entrenched in daily discussions on wikipedia, I may not understand all the nuances of being encyclopedia noteworthy. It's far easier for me to see it in practice and apply the same standard to new page. I applied that standard and it met the bar and I started contributing.

If you simply didnt want this article to exist, you should have said so in the beginning. It'd have saved me time and frustration. But, instead you progressively kept adding new bars.

I have said all I need to on this topic. You guys decide whether to keep and enhance or delete the article. In any case, I'll keep being active and contribute to other pages, but will not opine anymore on this topic. Groovy12 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet. The author might consider moving it into personal space, and waiting until it gets more notice from independent sources. Wikipedia is not a startup directory. W Nowicki (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent secondary sources available for this topic that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I cannot access this wsj article so I cannot comment, but I note that it was written on the same date (June 14 2017) as the PR announcement was released by the company and on the same topic. This intellyz article fails WP:ORGIND as it is company-generated PR. The webpage even helpfully states "To be considered for a Brain Candy article, email us at ...". This foundationcapital article is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND since it was written by one of their investors. Finally, this finsmes article fails WP:ORGIND for the same reason at it is a PR announcement. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 17 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 07:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ergotron

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

Blatant Promotion. Non-notable. Light2021 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- excluded as per WP:NOTSPAM: clearly created for promotional purposes and this content can just as effectively be housed on the company's web site. The coverage is routine: patents, products and corporate news. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this has gotten WP:RS of sufficient depth to meet the WP:GNG and be kept with a cleanup: for instance these articles [13], [14], and [15] focus on this company as their primary action-taking subject, go into some depth, and were published in widely-circulated, independent periodicals with circulations well above 100,000. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:00, 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 08:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or promotion. While the sources mentioned by GretLomborg above may pass the test for "independent and reliable", the references themselves fail the criteria for establishing notability. [16] fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as the article relies solely on quotations from a company officer. [17] fails WP:ORGIND since it is a company announcement and also relies on materials published by the company for facts and information. [18] fails for the same reason. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per previous editors, company does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and would need to have more verifiable sources to establish this. It currently does not. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:23, 18 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) 19:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam ul Haq

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

Not many WP:RS to verify his self-promotional biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Greenbörg (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You could check his attempt to create this biography here. Greenbörg (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam ul Haque. Greenbörg (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this self promotional page which was previously deleted through AfD. --Saqib (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing "real" notability here; reads like a self promotion piece, as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 22:08, 13 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) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf M. Saleem

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

There is no WP:RS to verify his self-promotional biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG and might fail subject-specific criteria too. Greenbörg (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this autbio. i couldn't find anything in RS on him so he fails WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough reliable sources to verify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 14 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 Catholic Medical Association. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Medical Students Association

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

Part of the Catholic Medical Association should merge with that Rathfelder (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. No independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge or delete pure PROMO for a club. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:59, 11 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 American Board of Emergency Medicine. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Certification in Emergency Medicine

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

Seems to be part of the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Should merge with that. Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support dead on nomination. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:59, 11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Arruda

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

Cannot find any sources to indicate she passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. De-prodded with rationale "widely held books--look for reviews . might meet WP:AUTHOR". I believe they were referring to NAUTHOR points 3 and 4 which suggest the author might be notable if their body of work is notable, but I can't find anything to suggest that is the case for this series. There are reviews from Publishers Weekly, but since they review everything, that can hardly be taken as evidence of notability. Other than that, I don't see anything.

As always, happy to withdraw if there is an indication that I've totally missed something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not even appear to meet a credible claim of significance, much less notability. Support deletion. ThePortaller (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She has reviews, but mostly in specialist publications which like Publishers Weekly review a lot of genre fiction, though PW certainly doesn't review everything published. RT Book Reviews (multiple reviews)[19], Historical Novel Review[20], Kirkus[21], PW[22][23], Library Journal[24] (I've not checked the other library journals which aren't online). It still needs someone to write an actual article though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, per the subject's works having received multiple independent periodical reviews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, in addition to her books being reviewed by Romantic Times, Kirkus, PW, Library Journal, and Historical Novel Review, some have also been reviewed by Booklist ie. The crocodile's last embrace, The leopard's prey, Treasure of the golden cheetah, The serpent's daughter, Mark of the lion, although most of these are "trade" reviews that some editors (including. it seems, the nominator, for PW anyway) are uncomfortable with (especially kirkus that now do accept payments for reviews, but which ones and since when?), they are acceptable for notability ... with some of these books having 3 reviews they could have their own wikiarticle (but i'm not going to push it:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oh, and the School Library Journal has reviewed some of her books including Freedom's Martyr: The Story of Jose Rizal, From Kansas to Cannibals, The Girl He Left Behind, and heres an article from The San Diego Union-Tribune that gives some background on Arruda. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:39, 18 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 Gregory Dark per WP:ATD-R. So Why 07:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object of Obsession

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

Alts:

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

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM, no coverage. Article makes no claim to notability, consists solely of a plot summary. --Bejnar (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to director Gregory Dark as one of his works. If some 23-year-old coverage comes forward, it can always be returned and sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:46, 11 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 discussion about whether the last RfC on SCHOOLOUTCOMES changed something is moot since even the previous consensus ([25]) did not allow for keeping a school when no independent sources proved its existence. Consensus here is that not even the existence can be proven, rendering the discussion, whether SCHOOLOUTCOMES is to applied differently now, moot. So Why 09:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge International School of Tunis

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

I can't find any reliable sources about this at all. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about what? Secondary schools are required to meet GNG or ORG (Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Schools). This doesn't. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus that generally all secondary schools that are proven to exist are notable. Something that has been established at AfD for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no independent reliable sources that I have seen that prove that it exists. All I can find is a couple forum posts, some job advertisements, and their website itself (i.e. it probably exists). What is the point of a wikipedia page about an organization when we have no sources to report about it and have practically nothing to say about it? Almost all of the details currently on the page are not WP:VERIFIABLE, as they have been sourced entirely from the school's own web page or are not sourced at all and no reliable secondary sources exist about the subject. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also RFC on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. Says that you shouldn't use it as an argument in deletion discussions. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is using it as a counter-argument. Consensus was established long before anyone noted it in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The RfC did not say that secondary schools were not notable and any claim that it did has proved highly controversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp Schooloutcomes is not an argument to keep, that was the result of the RfC, your statement above "Something that has been established at AfD for many years" is essentially using schooloutcomes as an argument. Notability must be proven through WP:GNG or WP:ORG (It states this clearly at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Schools). In short, unless this school has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization (it hasn't), it has no business on wikipedia. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say SCHOOLOUTCOMES was an argument to keep. As I believe I just said. I never even mentioned it. That was you! SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely summarises an existing consensus. And the RfC, despite the desperate, tedious and refuted claims of the deletionist brigade, did not change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't an argument to keep, but the consensus that it summaries is? Interesting. In any case, we have no reliable independent sources verifying that it exists, so anything regarding SCHOOLOUTCOMES (or the totally not-at-all-related consensus that it summarizes) is moot. Have you any other arguments to keep the article? Perhaps a reliable independent source or two? — Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Some people were just using SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an argument in itself. It isn't because it's just a summary. But the consensus clearly is a reason to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, with less than two full pages of results on Google, and no significant coverage amongst those results. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Right now the only argument for keeping is SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which was changed in the last year to make sure it wasn't used in AfD discussions a reason to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — fortunavelut luna 08:08, 19 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) 19:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Baldock

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

no evidence for meeting NARTIST - and apparently a paid article in violation of the terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nom nailed it. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 18 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. czar 07:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Code the Future

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

Procedural nomination as declined candidate for speedy deletion under A7. Tagger noted notability as the main concern, particularly a reliance on self-published and local sources. Relevant notability guidelines: the general notability guideline and organization-specific guidelines.

I have no opinion on this article. Appable (talk | contributions) 05:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. there does not seem to be any evidence for notability here. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. only independent reliable source is one local newspaper article. Geogene (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the local sources provided do not establish notability under WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds, per above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 11 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. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Wake County

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

No indication of general notability or of satisfying the guideline on geographic named places. Does not appear to be a legally defined or named place. (Each of the towns is a named place and rates its own article.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I don't see any specific speedy criteria, but the page is that bad. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep : Added few reference , hope it helps for notability BetterSmile:D 06:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
Comment Counties are notable per WP:NPLACE, and AFD is not cleanup, but there appears to be no such county as East Wake County. The towns in question are in Wake County, North Carolina, mainly in the eastern part of it. It is unlikely a region of a county is independently notable, but I'm withholding my !vote until I do further research. Regardless, the article should be edited to reflect the fact that it is merely a part of a county, and perhaps moved to Eastern Wake County, until we figure out what to do with it. Smartyllama (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax upon further reflection, per my comments above. Smartyllama (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10 to Wake County, North Carolina. Cabayi (talk) 15:42, 11 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist)

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

Non-notable individual, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I failed to find any evidence to support his contribution in any film listed in the article except Bahniman where he co-wrote the lyrics, current references are either press release, self-published, or blogs. The article been deleted multiple times under different titles Rajdweep and Rajdweep (writer). PROD removed by the author without explanation. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there's enough substance here that an article would be fine if it were sourced properly, the sources present here are almost all primary sources and blogs rather than real reliable source coverage in real media — but the notability claims (which boil down to "he and his work exist", rather than a strong claim like "won a major music award") are not strong enough to earn him a presumption of notability on less valid sourcing than it would take to pass WP:GNG. In addition the creator again tried to skirt around the salt, just as they did with Prem Khan, by creating the article at an alternate title and then admin-shopping to get the page moved overtop the salted title — the only reason this isn't speediable is because the prior deletions were by speedy rather than AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Deep articles from The Assam Tribune , The Telegraph (Calcutta) seen. But some clean up needed BetterSmile:D 04:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
Delete - It is kind of upsetting to see a page created to avoid a salt as this one is. As far as notability, there are some references, but not enough for what I feel establishes notability of the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment An article from The Northeast Today added. Along with The Assam Tribune , The Telegraph (Calcutta) articles makes it pass WP:GNG. All the 3 are reputed news papers from North East BetterSmile:D 06:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

All three sources are passing mentions none talk about the subject independently and in details to support WP:GNG or WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment How can you say that ? Article 1 This article only talks about the person throughout the article. Please dont be blind towards the evidence BetterSmile:D 07:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I see this source as a piece of advertisement and/or paid publicity which reads more like an interview and everyone know how print media works especially Indian media who happily act as PR agents for anyone who claims to be a star and write anything for some bucks. We need better third party sources to establish notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment You may think the way you like. But when commenting in wiki as an editor be little more responsible as you just said , all similar news articles are paid, then there is no need for such reference articles in wiki. Please talk sense BetterSmile:D 09:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

I don't see the Assam Tribune as a paid piece. If it were, there should be a disclosure. To claim such, we would need to have something other than its promotional tone to prove it. However, it would not be reliable as he is currently a journalist for that organization. While not really a self-published piece, I look at it like an organization who publishes content about its own members or employees. There really isn't an editorial process when they write about their own and therefore I don't consider the piece reliable.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIY as per the article , the person is working in Assamese daily Asamiya Khabar, not in Assam Tribune. Please note BetterSmile:D 01:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, Has not done any significant or notable work. FITINDIA 09:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment More content and reference added towards notability BetterSmile:D 12:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

All sources are nothing more than passing mention except #1 which reads like an advertisement and/or interview as I said above. Source 7, 8, 9 and 10 are not reliable 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are talking about the same event which qualify as WP:OVERKILL none provide more than a passing mention, which is insufficient to satisfy the inclusion notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:10, 11 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 was to keep the renamed article. Would be nice if someone put the references found by User:Joe Roe into the article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likhichajj stone age paintings

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

Mostly incomprehensible, although probably a travelogue (and so original research). No references and so no verifiability. If this is about ancient art, there is no discussion of its notability, which would be based on what reliable sources such as archeologists have said (but no such discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Added few references towards notability BetterSmile:D 07:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
Keep but rename to Pahargarh caves. After a little digging I found that this is just one of a series of caves with rock art better known as the Pahargarh caves. There's a decent amount of sources about them [26][27][28][29][30]. – Joe (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Moved to Pahargarh caves BetterSmile:D 12:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

We usually hold off on moves until after the AfD is complete, but thanks Bettersmiley. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Sorry for that :) . Shall we move it back ? BetterSmile:D 14:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)

It's not a big deal, probably best to leave it now. – Joe (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as moved I would have suggested doing that, or merging, anyway. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:44, 11 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't It Romantic (2019 film)

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

According to film notability guidelines, an unreleased film that is in principal photography is only notable if the production itself is notable, that is, has been covered by independent sources. There is no mention of anything notable about the production. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFF. A major studio film with production just began, it doesn't need to be deleted. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 05:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. Search engine test turns up multiple results. Please do a search per WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (gonna snow here) as a film production shown by due diligence [31][32] to be receiving the coverage to meet WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's evidence that it's started filming so meets WP:NFF. [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] Cowlibob (talk) 00:07, 16 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. czar 07:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Esteves

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

Esteves' only claim to fame was being Miss Arizona, which in and of itself is not enough to indicate notability. The only sources on her are either internat pageant related sources, or articles about the pageant she won itself that only mention her as the winner, and are not about her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; state-level beauty-pageant championships are not sufficient for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refs are all routine local coverage expected for a state pageant winner. Not enough for GNG. MB 03:06, 12 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 and redirect to Grand Prix motorcycle racing. czar 07:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 MotoGP season

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

WP:TOOSOON. Season is over a year away and article mostly consists of citations copied and pasted from 2018 article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 01:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON. Could also redirect the title to Grand Prix motorcycle racing. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I support the idea of redirecting the title to Grand Prix motorcycle racing. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:20, 11 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 has shifted to keeping per WP:HEY after cleanup. Even if notability is actually lacking, a merge or redirect to one of the notable organizations he belongs to can always be considered before renominating. So Why 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Reinstein

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

subject fails WP:GNG. Only passing mentions on relatively primary sources could be found. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa has already had to delete copyvio revisions of this article twice, and the current revision also contains copyright text. ~~Can we speedy delete it as a copyright violation?~~ Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a bit of cleanup and adding sources, I see no reason to delete. Sources are good, person is notable.--Geewhiz (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilabrand: the sources you added are primary and not reliable for the subject to meet GNG. I could only see passing mentions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Press, Haaretz and Ynet are not primary sources at all. They are reliable news sources in every respect.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they are just passing mentions about the subject. No? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The fact that his name crops up in all these articles is not coincidental. It is because he is a key figure in the Israeli parliamentary lobby to encourage Christians to voice support for Israel.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has a number of book mentions [36] as well of coverage in English (mainly Israeli/Jewish) press. A number of Hebrew mentions too ([37], [38]).Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources suffice to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentions are not substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that pop up in this [39] gNews search of his name do support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo blurb on a subject with so significant achievements. WP:PROMO fail with no in-depth coverage, just passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. This article in the Jerusalem Post is in-depth, but everything else just appears to be mentions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is at least one other profile "Canadian immigrant running for slot on Habayit Hayehudi list to 'save Jerusalem'" [40].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, E.M.Gregory. That's quite a short profile, but it all helps. Looking at the article and sources again, I am surprised that someone named the 49th most influential Jewish person in the world hasn't been the subject of more coverage. Could it be that there is more coverage in other languages (specifically Hebrew)? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cordless Larry Possibly, although I have now added WP:SIGCOV from an American book. He also gets covered in the press in countries were his Israel Allies Foundation has an affiliate in Parliament, some of which, like Hebrew, use non-Latin alphabets.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting There have been at least 2 profiles in a national, Israeli English-language daily. ( I didn't check the Hebrew language press.) Plus he is the widely cited director of a significant political outfit. I continue to think he passes notability and should be Kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN upgrade to article and sourcing by User:Gilabrand obviates the points raised by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged -- still "Delete" for me; a president of nn Israel Allies Foundation is hardly a claim to notability. The coverage is not sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Israel Allies Foundation is a notable organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete - I appreciate the effort made by Gilabrand to attempt to improve the article but unless there is more significant coverage, not just passing mentions, it does not fulfill notability requirements.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are NOT "just passing mentions"; there have been profiles. But more to the point "passing mentions" is hardly a an accurate description of the nature of the coverage, which in stories like this [41] on from NPR or this one [42], Christian Science Monitor, in which news organizations request and cite him offering policy analysis. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak keep since his position as president of a notable organization makes this notable enough to avoid simply deleting the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Israel Allies Foundation is bluelinked; the Presidency of this organization supports Reinstein's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN I have upgraded the article by sourcing Reinstein's role in founding major Christian pro-Israel organization, Pastor John Hagee's Christians United for Israel, the largest and most influential pro-Israel lobby in the United States. Note also that one of those books provides a multi-page, in-depth, sourced WP:SIGCOV profile of Reinstein's childhood and career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Knesset Christian Allies Caucus. I've struck my delete comment above. I'm not convinced that mentions such as that in the Christian Science Monitor source above really contribute much to establishing notability, but the Yale UP book pushes this over the threshold for me. Given that most of the coverage is about Reinstein's role at the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus, we might consider merging the material into a personnel section there. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist given recent improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 11 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 G5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lizarettez

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

WP:HOAX, the sources and external links either 404, or are related to Juice (film). Cannot find any WP:RS of this film existing on Google Jumpytoo Talk 01:14, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marisha Ray

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

Minor actor and voice actor sourced to trivial sources with no indication of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat weak keep per find sources links - there seem to be some non-vanity sources from respectable publications out there (e.g. the LA Times). Yeah, she's a grade-Z actress in notability, and some of the Ghits deeply smell of astroturf self-promotion, but there seem to be enough roles that there's a solid chance that the article will eventually grow more solidly on the keepable side from the borderline side. I'd generally err on the keep side anyway for someone with 10+ roles that aren't complete extras. (EDIT: Although it's weird that the article when I first looked at it WAS hyping completely unnotable extra roles in the lede... Stormtrooper voice? Really?) SnowFire (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appears in web series including Critical Role with interview on Ray in Forbes magazine [43] [44], CelebD&D [45] and School of Thrones (web series parody of Game of Thrones) [46]. Also a creator on the web series Batgirl: Spoiled [47] Also MC'ed the Colorado Anime Fest 2016 which made local news there [48] I've added anime to the list, but I don't see many web series that have prominent notability outside of the Critical Role one, which is hyped a lot by the Geek & Sundry company. She does get write-ups by lots of random newspapers though which is better than what I've seen for some voice actors. [49] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:00, 12 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. czar 07:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nubreed 7

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

Appears to have been missed in the bundled nom for the other Nubreed albums: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nubreed 001. Same rationale applies: not particularly notable, fails WP:NALBUM. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nubreed 001. Lourdes 01:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per the above. I agree that it is not particularly notable and must have been forgotten/missed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nubreed 001. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: personally I love the NuBreed albums, but I can't justify their inclusion on Wikipedia, and the same goes for most mix albums, to be honest. This was almost certainly reviewed in the likes of Mixmag and DJ Mag, but there's very little else you could say about this type of album that could form the basis of a decent article. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on the topic but I wonder if there's enough critical content in those reviews to support an article on the series as a whole? Obviously if they're just like "great album good job" then no, but if they talk about previous NuBreed albums and compare them, that actually might pass GNG and be worth documenting in a standalone. YMMV if you actually want to do that but it's a thought. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC: I agree that where you have a series of albums like this, there's more chance of a decent stand-alone article if you focus on the series as a whole rather than the individual albums. The NuBreed series was a spin-off from the successful Global Underground series, designed to highlight up-and-coming DJs (hence the series title) rather than the established DJ names who mixed the GU albums. So in this case it would make more sense to include the albums within the Global Underground article, and indeed that is where they are mentioned: Global Underground#Nubreed. Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 11 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.