Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 July	22 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was withdrawn per WP:HEY. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claymation Comedy of Horrors

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

Non-notable film. One GNews hit, barely anything on the regular search other than blogs, people selling things, and blogs selling things. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The EW link is a professional review by Ken Tucker. Wikipedia:Notability (films) says that two professional reviews are an indication of notability, so I'd definitely like to see another. However, for a 1991 short, it's likely those reviews would have been in print, not on the internet. There are also quite a few mentions in Google Books -- I'll add some of the more promising references, including one I see in the first couple of hits about awards for work on the short.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable review sources found by Fabrictramp and the fact that it won a significant Emmy award. Definitely needs to be expanded though. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine question, but does the animator winning an Emmy make the film notable? It sounds more like something that would bolster the animator's notability. Primefac (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure, but I think I remember reading a page about the notability guidelines regarding film articles or another deletion discussion that the film winning a significant award indicates notability, much like how a song charting in several nations indicates significant notability. I could be wrong about that, though, since the guidelines can change.editorEهեইдအ😎

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

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

Keep per just enough coverage in reliable sources. IE: Exclaim! and numerous books showing this film has become part of our enduring historical record]. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nac SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yosuke Amemiya

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

I can find no indication that this artist meets WP:ARTIST. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've searched and found some references. Passes WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new references that Arthistorian1977 found seem to be enough to establish notability. Rockypedia (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now has reliable sources references, passing WP:BASIC, hopefully the article will be expanded Atlantic306 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep with subsequent consensus, nac SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wellyson Luiz de Oliveira Sobrau

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

Contested PROD. The tag was removed with the claim that the player played in the Romanian top-flight, which doesn't appear to be borne out by the sources. His stint for the Romanian club was when it was playing at the level below that required by WP:NFOOTY. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Soccerway, he made 3 appearances in the Campeonato Paulista in 2013 - that is a fully-professional league and he therefore meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also according to Soccerway, he made 13 appearances in Liga I in 2014/15. Since this is a fully pro league, he meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if apparences are being sourced to a soccer specific site but not to reliable indepdent sources, the football notability guidelines are clearly wrong, and we should stop keeping articles that clearly fail GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY per the excellent research above. This is not the appropriate place to discuss the merits of the standards. Smartyllama (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played over a third of the games in a season in the Romanian top flight. Not like we are talking about a one game wonder. The sources out there would probably be in Romanian. Not easy to find or evaluate from volunteer English-speaking editors. In view of WP:BIAS, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to GFriend. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sowon (singer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC; sources like youtube and fan blogs are not reliable Snowflake91 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Agreed, not notable outside the band, though it would be good if this material could be incorporated into the GFriend page. Matt's talk 23:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge on further reflection and in light for further arguments. Matt's talk 07:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sowon has no individual notability. Random86 (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As has previously been said; Sowon is not notable enough as of yet. Abdotorg (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that there are pages for her in Korean, Spanish, Portuguese, Vietnamese, and Chinese have to count for something. This page should not be deleted but augmented by sources from the other wiki languages. Her career began DSP Media, and then she was with Rainbow (South Korean band) and A-Jax (band) before GFriend. She appeared in the Korean series Running Man (TV series) as well. None of this can be summed up in the article for GFriend.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Patapsco913: Being notable for appearing in an MV is extremely questionable and highly unlikely, and variety shows have no place in this argument (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#Eradication_of_variety_show_sections). Sowon has not released any solo music, been a cast member on any shows out with the group, or acted in any dramas/films to be notable enough for an individual article just yet. Abdotorg (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how much weight do we place on the fact that there are six other wiki projects that deem her notable. I think the best route would be to get a Korean language person to put an article for deletion on the Korean page and then see how that plays out.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedias have different notabilty criterias; on Korean wiki, EVERY Kpop idol group member has its own page, even the members like Sowon, where you can write literally just one sentence about her, and has no solo career of any kind. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said so on the WP:N talk page and will reiterate it here: what weight do we place on there being an article on six other Wikipedias? Zero. As Snowflake91 says, other Wikipedias have different notability criteria, even if Wikipedia was itself a reliable source, which it is not ... and presuming those other articles have likewise come under notability scrutiny, which an examination of the respective talk pages shows they have not. I think the best route would be that if you want to save the article, provide reliable sources discussing the subject in the significant detail the GNG requires. Ravenswing 11:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the benefit of the closer: This has since been raised WP:N and there seems to be a near unanimous agreement that existence on other language wiki's does not carry any weight in itsself. This make the above an invalid keep argument.T v x1 14:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources. WP:BLP1E, the 1E being membership of the band. If there is still interest in the subject in ten years time then BLP can be resurrected. Presence on other Wikipedias is irrelevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Current sources, while not fantastic are good enough. Of the current references, this(1) and this(2) are secondary source coverage in reliable independent sources. Another notability-attesting source is this(3). Kim So-jeong, aka Sowon, lead singer of GFriend. If decided "not notable", the outcome fo this should be merge amd redirect to GFriend, definitely not "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not in-depth as required for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think they are typical of acceptable young pop group singer bios. It's a judgement call, if sufficient depth is disagreed with, merge and redirect to GFriend. Do not "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi is not "reliable independent source", it is probably the worst possible source for Korean entertainment news per WP:KO/RS, it is a sensationalism blog-like website, written by people without any competences, mostly fans. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi I numbered (2), I'll look harder at it later. What about my (1) and (3)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of google translate (not super helpful and a bit funny, "When I meet my buttocks, my sleep comes up." would be a good title for almost anything) they both appear to include of a description of wish/wishes that she wrote herself. Not ideal for WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sowon" literally means "wish" in Korean, so its probably that. Anyway, I already merged and expanded "Members" section at Gfirend page, so it can get deleted/redirected. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, SmokeyJoe, let's turn that around some. We're not required to demonstrate that those aren't reliable sources. You're required to demonstrate why they are. You stated, emphatically, that those represented "secondary source coverage in reliable independent sources." That presumes that you did the work necessary to verify they are. Would you present your evidence, please? Ravenswing 14:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes a reading of the text to tell that they are secondary sources, you look for qualitative commentary on pre-known facts. Reliable, I look again at the text, is there any reason to doubt the facts, are there extraordinary claims, and I also look at other articles from the same website. The hardest test is "independence". The group is a commercial entity, they have management, advertising budgets, etc, and we live in a world of subtle advertising. What I looked for is whether the article, and then the website, also contains, directly or indirectly, links to purchases. If they do, I would call it unashamed promotion (write a story, thin finished with a link to buy tickets). I didn't find these things. I think I spent ten minutes doing these things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Matt/M.R.Forrester. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: I'm likewise not sold that those constitute reliable sources (and would be interested in hearing Smokey Joe's reasoning for believing they are). That being said, this is a perfectly valid candidate for a redirect. Ravenswing 11:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The guidelines say smth like: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." I do not see how she has done anything to justify an own article. Also her pages in Korean, Spanish etc. are absolutely ridiculous, some of them have just the infobox with no content.--Thebestwinter (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not a lot of substance to the delete arguments here, and this group nomination is problematic. Please make an individual nomination if you want the community to reconsider. A Train^talk 17:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya International

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

No notability established. Only link is a results database. Also the medalists are mostly red links (which again questions the notability of the event in itself). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads more like a list of statistics than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@TH1980: I have added a few more tournaments that are very similar to the first one. Do you have any comment on those as well? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the article needs more to it than just statistics to make it a full-fledged Wikipedia entry. There needs to be a block of text describing the history of Kenya International in addition to the statistics.TH1980 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The reason same with Maldives International, Uganda International, White Nights which was nominated before but the results is keep. It would be great if you improved insted of deleted. Stvbastian (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sports competitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These should be separately discussed, as they are independent topics whose notability is unrelated to each other. (There's plenty of news coverage in Thai for Smiling Fish International, by the way.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to separate. Some articles also coverage in the news. Like LibrePrincess comment in Talk:Kenya International: duckduckgo.com/?q="Kenya International" badminton seems to bring up a few news sources that report on the events. standardmedia.co.ke, ugandaradionetwork.com, allafrica.com 1, allafrica.com 2, sportsnewsarena.com. I also added some references on Argentina International and Greece International, and i tried to improve all that articles. Stvbastian (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. These are except for Singapore and Thailand the highest level international tournaments held in the respective countries and are sanctioned by the Badminton World Federation and Badminton Continental Confederations (and Singapore and Thailand are one of the most important countries in badminton and a second level tournament should be relevant like in the countries of similar importance in tennis for instance). All of the tournaments are similar to comparable events in tennis, or golf for instance. Additionally, there are enough sources here to pass GNG. Looking at some of the winners shows that these tournaments clearly attract some very good players. In comparison (stated in Wikipedia:Notability_(events)), College bowl games (not limited to BCS or College Football Playoff bowl games, see e.g. 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games) or All-star or similar exhibition games are notable. All of the mentioned articles for deletion above are of much bigger relevance than the cited college games. Additionally, similar events were already discussed in detail, with all of them as result Keep. Florentyna (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all high level competitions with existing reliable sources coverage in the articles such as Kenya Gazette, The Nation and The Standard press coverage in the case of Kenya International or available from Google news search Atlantic306 (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And if deletion is to be pursued, they should ne nominated individually, and preferrably not all at once. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Gritsenko

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

Fails notability as there is no GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet #1,3,5 WP:NBADMINTON. Stvbastian (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets #1,3,5 WP:NBADMINTON. Florentyna (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only meets WP:NBADMINTON, but does so multiple-times over (e.g., four word championships appearances). Not like the subject just passed the guideline, but well surpasses. Might be different if they appeared in one world championship and lost soundly. Has competed multiple times, won some matches, and is only World Championship results, not even including criteria 3 or 5. RonSigPi (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThomasTekno

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete fails GNG/MUSICBIO/RS/etc. South Nashua (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Hayman30 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly a self-creation, down to the photo being a selfie, subject literally did all of this himself. Only claim to notability being a twitter follow is the saddest notability is not inherited argument I've seen. JesseRafe (talk) 18:19, 23 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. (Not a snowball's chance of another outcome.) czar 21:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Thorn

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

Hoax article. This person doesn't exist. Checked sources and there is no search person named Roger Thorn who worked as VP of game publishing on Xbox or at Mircrosoft. The1337gamer (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also found no sources verifying such an individual exists as described. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pending some amazing source turning up. Looks like a spoof article that was lifted from Ed Fries - X201 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if not CSD G3. I think this is less a case of non-obvious hoax and more of "just no one looked." -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that the creator of the article, User:IAmAMobster, has no other edits except on this article. In the case of a suspected hoax this is always a bad sign. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Getting pretty snowy. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 06:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP without a source. Doubt it's an intentional hoax, more likely that it's just a page for someone non-notable. Landscape repton (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with WP:SNOW Should have been speedied. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 22 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Euratlas History Maps

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

Fails WP:WEB and fails WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Euratlas is cited as a source in quite a few google-scholar and google-books hits. I believe their historical map data is RS (or regarded by some as such).Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi! It's not true that this page fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. History mapping does not receive attention like a nationwide sports competition! As Notability for Webs says (quote) "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". In the history field, Euratlas represents the digital enterprise that sums up many years of research and paper/print publications (mainly Atlases). It is just so important. Considering only the name of the company, which is a compound noun, not included in the dictionary, google says over 100.000 results. That, in the history field is notable, indeed.

There are so many sources online citing Euratlas. As Notability for Webs says(quote) "the individual web content has received [...] attention from independent sources" and also "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article". Maybe more sources should be added, specially in German and French. But the sources already exist, indeed, so it is a notable subject. Many blogs and reviews exist, including university (public!) endorsement. All independently and in many, many languages.

Are the Universities of Virginia, Duke and Stamford not reliable sources? Is the AU Library Knowledgebase not a reliable source? Please, explain yourself on that. Check (quite huge) traffic analytics https://www.similarweb.com/website/euratlas.net Comte arnau(talk) 23:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable, per nom. Comte arnau wants us to believe we need an article about this because the subject " is just so important" and Icewhiz claims WP:GHITS. Both are discredited arguments. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming GHITS. I am saying, following a google scholar and books search - that these maps are cited by many. Not the website, the map data.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a good argument for notability based on the citations of Euratlas in tons of scholarly works. Wikipedia doesn't have a specific notability guideline for non-book reference works, but it makes sense to me that notability for a reference work should take into account how widely cited it is, since WP:BOOKCRIT and other specialized notability guidelines include criteria about impact in their field. Euratlas functions in a similar way to an academic book, and the criteria at WP:TEXTBOOKS even specifically includes "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" and "how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area".

There are also some academic works that discuss Euratlas a bit as part of the work, which could be used as sources for the article: [1], [2], [3]. Here's also a post about it on the University of Chicago Visual Resources Center site. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Excessive nomination. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for more about the duplication nominations. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zarb-e-Sukhan

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

This article share the same problems in referencing with The Wise Way therefore i suggest it to be deleted. Saqib (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Zarb-e-Sukhan of the author Ehsan Sehgal is a poetry collection of their four-decade long career & it consists 1000 plus pages. It was reviewed by multiple newspapers:
A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times.
Daily Jang. 24 November 2012.
Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir
Daily Jang. 15 May 2012.
Daily Jang. 13 May 2012. (dead link)

So, it seems to pass GNG. If others think otherwise, it should definitely be merged with the author's article. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, this is a concurrent Afd along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise Way and the author's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination). Possibly more, but those two for sure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those have both been open for more than 7 days now, any idea why they haven't been closed yet? Landscape repton (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This self-published poetry book doesn't come close to meeting any of the three thresh-hold criteria for book notability.

1) It doesn't have an ISBN number.

2) worldcat searches in both English and Urdu return zero results for it in library holdings (compared to the threshold criteria of a dozen or more holdings)

3) It doesn't appear in the 'relevant' National Collection, whether that's taken to be Britain, The Netherlands, or Pakistan. None of them contain this book in their catalogues.

Normally, failure of any one of these would be taken as exclusionary. There were a small number of reviews, but nothing to suggest notability, and certainly not enough to suggest this book warrants a standalone article distinct from the author page.

I'd also note that there's a strong argument that this breaches WP:G11. The article was created by a personal friend of the author who 'shares his computer sometimes', and was first added to minutes after creation by the author himself. I've tried removing some of the more explicit promotional language, but it's still inherently promotional.

I've not much against merging to the author page except that there's basically nothing here that isn't a duplication of what's there anyway. Landscape repton (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I was in favour of merge previously but looking at the sources and BLP's AfD it will be better to delete this page. Best, we can redirect it. Greenbörg (talk) 06:44, 22 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. If CJCurrie (or anyone else) would like the article userfied so work is not lost, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Ceschi-Smith

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

Ceschi-Smith was a city councillor in Brantford, Ontario, a city not large enough to confer notability on its councillors (as per WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and MOS:CA#Municipal politics).

I found no coverage of Ceschi-Smith in any news sources other than WP:ROUTINE coverage in local papers. Madg2011 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created (not by me) at a time when WP:NPOL was considerably looser about the notability of local political figures than it is now — technically, the notability claim here wasn't so much her role as a city councillor but her role with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, but being on the board of directors of an organization isn't a free notability pass anymore either. The depth and breadth of coverage shown here don't pass what we now require for a person at this level of significance: even the FCM work is sourced only to local media in the city where she was a municipal councillor, and not to any evidence of wider media attention for it (and for a role of national scope, the lack of nationalized coverage does argue against deeming her notable for it.) So it was a good faith creation at the time, but Wikipedia's standards have been considerably tightened up over the years and it doesn't pass the test anymore. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article in 2010, and I can confirm that Ceschi-Smith's involvement in the FCM was what persuaded me of her notability. I've always regarded this as a borderline case, and I won't particularly object if the article is deleted now. (Ceschi-Smith did receive some national coverage in the early 2000s for her work on brownfields – here and here – but I'll acknowledge this probably isn't enough to justify the article on its own.) CJCurrie (talk) 01:49, 22 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) 20:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Barak

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

The subject of the article does not have any notablity and the page have very little verified information. That's why I think the article should be deleted Ominictionary (talk) 18:25, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note she is not the Israeli supreme court judge with the same name ( and an Erez at the end). If she passes it would be as a jounalist (celebs and the like). I do not see it in a BEFORE, but I might be wrong. Article is in a very poor state, even if she is notable TNTing would do little harm.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 17:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arts 4 Peace Awards

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

I find no evidence that this event meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. Largoplazo (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since my nomination, the creator has made the article more and more promotional. Largoplazo (talk) 22:31, 23 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. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 18:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison osterfield

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingonelol, read the message above, which gives the reasons it is nominated for deletion. This is the page to comment on. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT. Only coverage I can find is this MTV article which notes he's friends with Tom Holland. I don't think that's enough to write an article on. Ajpolino (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingonelol, please stop wiping the discussion - just contribute to it. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 22 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) 20:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Stuffer

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

On behalf of Linkinpit (talk · contribs) - see Talk: and User talk:Home Lander (where they claim to be the subject of this BLP). As it's a protected article and they're a new editor, they can't do it for themself.

WP:BIODELETE Relatively unknown non-public figure. Wikipedia page should be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) (for Linkinpit) 18:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this doesn't seem to be a vital BLP for us to maintain. Any notability is inherited {[sic}} from authoring a video game, SuperFranc, which we don't have an article on. I'm unswayed by the claim to be the subject, as that's largely unprovable.

If we did have an article on the game, and the game impact is substantial, we could have some coverage as a section within that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Andy Dingley, though I've been told WP:BIODELETE is only a mechanism to help discussions like these get closed easier. Aside from this, no point in having a page for a game developer if there's no articles for his achievements. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. My mistake. Misreading of WP:NGRIDIRON. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delvin Lamar Hughley

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

Never played a professional game of American Football, played only in the Arena Football League under different rules and so doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON. I can't find any good coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:36, 21 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) 20:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jane Peterson

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The appearance on a single TV show episode will not be significant. only (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making a one-off appearance on a reality show is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and the references aren't solid enough to pass WP:GNG — of the footnotes present here, #1 is a user-generated "anybody can write 'coverage' about absolutely anything they want" platform which is quite routinely abused by wikiwannabes to distribute self-published sourcing in lieu of real media coverage, and thus cannot be used to assist notability at all; #2 completely fails to mention her name at all unless she's the surnameless "Jessica" whose role in the article is limited to holding a balloon for another performer; #3 is a deadlinked PDF on the personal website of a colleague; and #6 is a press release on the PR website of the network that airs the reality show she's going to appear on, which makes it a primary source that cannot assist notability either. And of the two references here that do count as reliable sources, one is a deadlink and the other just namechecks her as a provider of soundbite in an article whose subject is a theatre in her own hometown, not her qua her. Which means none of this is sufficient to make her notable enough for an article as of today. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 23 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 and renominate. OK, it seems like this turned into a "trainwreck" - too many disparate topics under the same header. The NRHP sites have consensus to keep, the other should be renominated as individual AfDs Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [they all seem to be created to circumvent the WP rules on non-promotion by B&B owners, possibly as a result of the YouTube instruction video I referenced for Pink House AfD recommendation]:

I just used Categories to find similar items, and there are literally thousands of entries... and this is just Florida [4] Most may not be B&B's but every one I looked at has basically no references so there seem to be a global WP:Notability issue here. This is beyond the manual AfD process capability! RobP (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This category[5] provides a smaller set which are all B&Bs which I used to find some of the articles listed above. RobP (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Business advertisement RobP (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across a YouTube video training B & B owners how to try to circumvent the WP rules on non-promotion - and it is brazenly named: Getting Your Business on Wikipedia! I did a quick search on B & B and came across this article which seems to fit the bill of an article on a business with no particular WP:Notability that may be connected. I wonder how many others there are? [6] RobP (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This says it's also known as “the Walter Brown House” but I can't find anything for it under that name, either. If it truly is historic there would be some such designation -- but no sign of that, either. ~~Delete.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a bundled nomination when I had !voted. It was changed after. Striking thru. Any nominated properties on NRHP or with a state heritage designation should not be deleted, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Subjects ~~isn't~~ aren't notable. Although Moses J. Taylor House, Bishop-Andrews Hotel, and Fairbanks Houseare all registered historic buildings, WP:GEOFEAT requires "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" which seem to be lacking. Admittedly, the paid editors are busy at work and they've been staying a step ahead of us. If the consensus is delete, I'd ask the closing admin to put Fairbanks House (Fernandina Beach, Florida) into my userspace so I can rehab it. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Fails WP:NOR; I don't find anything about the house on newspapers.com, google books, etc, although in theory such an article could be useful, per XKCD:Constructive. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my !vote, which was made before the AfD included multiple articles. I still don't find anything about Pink House, but certainly a number of these are perfectly suitable buildings for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Old Town Manor. It seems to have enough sourced detail to pass the WP:GNG. Some of the sources are not properly formatted and do not include sufficient bibliographic detail to easily verify, but I think hter is enogh here to keep and improve. Failing that, draftify while refs are checked and filled in. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for all NRHP sites: All the sites on the NRHP are inherently notable. I created the NRHP articles over 10 years ago, and be assured I am not affiliated with any B&B (individual or organization). --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 06:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial keep: NRHP-listed sites generally meet the GNG - the NRHP documentation alone usually contains a wealth of historical information. Any advertising, of course, should be stripped out permanently. The non-NRHP-listed articles don't appear to meet the GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial keep Any of the properties on the NRHP are notable; the standards for listing a property on the NRHP are higher than Wikipedia's standards of notability, and part of the nomination process involves compiling a list of references that can be used to support our articles as well. Besides, most of those articles aren't even promotional, they're just short; of course, being promotional isn't inherently a reason to delete something, since AfD isn't cleanup. No opinion on the others, though the lack of WP:BEFORE for the properties on the NRHP has me leaning toward a procedural keep for those as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I believe 7 of the 10 are NRHP listed and therefore notable. The remainder should be individually renominated after a thorough WP:BEFORE if they still appear not to meet GNG. MB 06:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep (some) for those on NRHP; delete the rest. I am slightly dubious as to whether WP needs articles on all NRHP buildings. In UK, we do not allow articles on all listed buildings, though being listed may swing us to keeping in doubtful cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all NRHP sites - they are all extensively documented, with sources, generally by professional architectural historians and then approved by state level and then federal level bureaucrats. Some only need very short articles, e.g. a 1750 log cabin where nothing much happened, but it is considered the best preserved of its type in the state. A very few might not be considered notable, e.g. German style iron crosses in North Dakota cemeteries (North Dakota is pretty loose in defining "historical"). The notability is for the historic structure, not the b & b. But the bnb website sometimes can be used as a source. I'll note that a lot of these buildings might be torn down if they weren't converted into another use, so I don't object to bnbs saving them, nor to a 1 line note that they are now bnbs. Perhaps Centre Mills might be a good example of this. It's about as far out in the boonies as you can get in Pennsylvania. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all NRHP sites, per Users MB and Smallbones. Those that aren't on NRHP should be examined as local historical sites, and probably kept as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the NRHP sites. And for clarity, the following are NOT NRHP sites: Old Town Manor, Hoyt House (Fernandina Beach, Florida) and Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida). Regarding Old Town Manor, the article states that it is on a register of "Historic Homes". I don't know what this is, but it certainly isn't the same as the National Register of Historic Places. And although it is located in the Key West Historic District, the file on that district at the NRHP site shows that the Old Town Manor wasn't used to support the district's application for historic status. Similarly, the article on the Pink House states that it is an "historic house" and links that term to an article that would lead a reader to assume that the house is on the NRHP. But that's a false implication. As for the broader question of whether each of the approximately 100,000 listings on the NRHP should be deemed inherently notable, I tend to think that they are. But I'm much more certain that the question should be debated in a forum that is more general than this AfD nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do we have any evidence that the non-NRHP sites are Florida Historic Landmarks, or on local historic lists? Also I was going to suggest reformatting Old Town Manor as a contributing property to the Key West Historic District, but you mentioned that it wasn't used to support the district's application for historic status. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiming in here as I nominated these articles: note that this is only the Florida list. I have to wonder how many other B&B articles for places across the US or world are hiding in plain sight by misrepresenting information, perhaps as suggested in a training video like the one I referenced. RobP (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before responding to the unsigned question from DanTD, I'll provide the links that I should have provided in my first comment. These are the links to the NRHP listings for the Key West Historical District: the 1971 application and the 1983 application (the 1983 listing appears to be for an expansion of the 1971 district). I searched both listings (and for both listings, both the applications and the photographs) for mentions of "Old Town Manor" or "Eaton Lodge". Neither showed up. As to DanTD's question, I don't know whether the Old Town Manor is on any non-Federal list. But consider this -- the NRHP has a bit less than 100,000 listings but, if the list were expanded to include all of the "contributing" properties within the historic districts, that list would run to about a million. And if we add non-NRHP sites that are deemed "historic" at the state or local level, how many would we have? Two million? Five million? Ten million? I don't know, but even one million is far too large a number for us to have a separate stand-alone article for each property. And so, without evidence of notability that goes well beyond a mere listing at the state or local level, we probably shouldn't be considering non-NRHP buildings. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My not signing my message was an accident, and I apologize. In response to your concerns for one agree that we shouldn't write about every site that's an NRHP contributing property or every single local historic site. But keep these facts in mind; the NRHP template does have provisions for both and more (Template:Infobox NRHP), and other historic sites that are not individual NRHP sites are allowed here. I strongly recommend some New York City Landmarks, which includes both NRHP and non-NRHP sites. I also recommend articles such as The Old 76 House, Saint James General Store, St. James (LIRR station), Southampton (LIRR station), Shinnecock Hills (LIRR station), Mamaroneck (Metro-North station), and plenty of others that fit into these categories. If the old houses that were converted into Bed & Breakfasts that aren't on NRHP don't fit any criteria, I can gladly accept merging them somewhere. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's Florida's page related to historic sites. I'm still trying to navigate that thing so I can figure out whether the non-NRHP sites are registered with either the state, or cities like Melbourne Beach, Fernandina Beach, Key West, etcetera. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the NRHP properties for the reasons stated above. Einbierbitte (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is fair for these articles to be nominated for deletion, although I am an author/editor and fan of NRHP articles myself. I added a bit to the Moses J. Taylor House article just now, and think it is okay to keep. It was one of 780 NRHP articles in Florida that had been created long ago with very minimal content and was never developed, although NRHP nomination documents have become available online and could be added by any NRHP editors or others interested (see wp:NRHPHELP for guidance). It was tagged as one of WikiProject NRHP's most minimal articles in 2013. I think deletion of the other NRHP articles would not lose any substance that is not already included in the corresponding county-level NRHP list-articles. It would be better to develop the articles, perhaps, but that has not happened for 10 years! I have myself shown up for many AFDs over the years arguing that "NRHP=notable, so Keep", as have other NRHP editors who were rounded up to comment in this AFD, but it would be fair for others to say the NRHP editors should fix up their articles or let them be pared away. Again, all the substantial info (location, name, photo, other) is already included in county list-articles, and external links which are included should actually be deleted anyhow as not providing anything substantial. --do ncr am 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRHP properties. Renominate the rest. It is a bit disconcerting, that after nominating an article with good chance of deletion while the discussion already had started and people !voted other articles where added to the nomination, which do not fit the same profile´. Agathoclea (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as unchanged consensus aside from nominator, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep_state_in_the_United_States

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

Article is Point of View DrElgin (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Article is Point of View. Article is not Encyclopedic. Deep state is not an American phase in common usage, it is a "slang phrase" only used by a small group of far right.— DrElgin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Within the article, there are plenty of citations to reliable sources that mention the topic of a deep state in the context of US politics. Major news outlets have discussed this in terms of allegations and/or conspiracy theories from the alt-right. Issues such as a non-neutral point of view can best be handled through judicious editing rather than through deletion. A merge into State within a state (where deep state redirects) is also a plausible option. Deli nk (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment as a Trump specific conspiracy theory is there some Trump related article we could merge or redirect to? Artw (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bad idea to think of it solely as "a Trump specific conspiracy theory" because the concept is older and broader than that. A few minutes on Google turns up examples where the concept has been written about by academics on the progressive side (see Peter Dale Scott) and by the ex-Republican Mike Lofgren. Deli nk (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple RSs discussing the topic. Matt's talk 23:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Deep State" is a "slang phrase" not in normal American English usage. (could move to a Dictionary of Slang phrases) Article is Point of View and Not Encyclopedic. At best, this seems an advertisement for the Republican party. The same government leaks mentioned have existed during all administrations, not just Trumps. DrElgin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Slang phrase" is not a disqualifying attribute for a Wikipedia article (example: Hella). As for an ad for the Republican party, every politician is welcome to push their narrative into popular culture. Wikipedia articles are only measured against their success in getting that term used by WP:Reliable sources. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for the closing admin: this comment is a second "vote" by the nominator. Deli nk (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see this as similar to Vast right-wing conspiracy. While I personally see "Deep State" as more of a skewed assault on proper democratic institutions whereas the Clintons were sort of refering to an actual conspiracy; I set my politics aside and argue this is a term being used by non-altright media sources: Politico using "Deep State". I'd rather Wikipedia, with our best efforts to provide well sourced info, be the first hit people see when they search this term. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And expand. While both parties disagree on the effect and goals of the Deep State, most people acknowledge the existence of long-time government officials and Obama holdovers who want to make the current president's life miserable and as difficult as possible. The highly notable phenomenon needs to be documented. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trump's claims aren't true, but that doesn't mean it's unencyclopedic - we have lots of articles about things that aren't true, such as Flat Earth. As noted above, there's a number of reliable sources discussing and sometimes debunking the various claims and counter-claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I was young, the "Deep State" was a conspiracy theory told by progressives/liberals in which Big Oil and Wall Street controlled the reigns of the state regardless of who is in the White House. Now its a conspiracy theory told by conservatives in which progressives/liberals control the reigns of the state regardless of who is in the White House. This idea has been around for a long time in US politics and even if the details have changed, the fundamental concept is essentially the same. It is notable - academics study it and write about it and professors teach about it in Poli Sci classes. The idea that deep state is a slang phrase "only used by a small group of far right" is plain wrong and the person who nominated this article for deletion on that basis is just ignorant. Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. EELagoon (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph David-Jones

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

does not meet criteria for an article Kellymoat (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "does not meet criteria for an article" is not a valid reason. Article meets WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sufficient significant roles in film and TV to satisfy NACTOR. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass WP:NACTOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as suggested, nac, SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Strohl

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

Roderick Strohl was an NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. Neither his rank nor awards qualify him for a page under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, Strohl led a quiet life that did qualify him for consideration under WP:GNG. Strohl was not portrayed in the HBO miniseries, although his action of going AWOL to rejoin his company was attributed to another character; he did appear in the introductory commentaries and in the accompanying documentary. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article, and if only because "Kesselring would not surrender to a Sergeant." --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That hardly makes Strohl notable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To simplify history, you should also delete the List of the 72 names on the Eiffel Tower and cover the plaques with graphities, because we all learned in school that it was Gustave, who built this tower.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not independently notable, redirect to Band of Brothers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect name as stated above; not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although sources were found and presented in the debate, the general agreement is they were insufficient to prove notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential Capital Management

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

Promotional article created by an SPA about a subject that is borderline. They were involved with reporting irregularities at another company that did cause that firm to file for bankruptcy, but most of the coverage that exists about them is one line in larger reports about the other firm being caught. The Independent's coverage is one line and refers to them as "little known", which I think helps shore up the argument that they are not a significant player. WP:CORPDEPTH combined with the promotional factors make this article fail WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This fund seems to be very active in exposing corporate frauds. While Globo was certainly the highest profile event, American Addiction Centers was important enough to dedicate a full article to the stock collapse and a full paragraph to Quintessential at the Wall Street Journal (see reference in the article).

As far as "little-known" the fund was probably little known prior to the Globo events. After the Globo event, with the fund mentioned in several top newspapers and the portfolio manager invited to speak in several high-profile events, the fund is now quite well known, at least in Italy, in the UK and within the hedge fund community.Yakag (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La Repubblica, Italy's second largest newspaper, has covered Quintessential in a full article which, though in Italian, describes the fund and its activities just as much as the Globo event itself: The 007 Fund and even calls it with the nickname "the 007 fund".

Again, in this old WSJ article, Gregory Zuckerman from the WSJ actually seeks out Mr. Grego, as a representative of Quintessential, to ask opinions about market conditions. They would not do that if the fund were not a significant player.

https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=16353&mn=26761&pt=msg&mid=15260267 Yakag (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Not enough third party sources that are about the subject itself.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it does not fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Although depth of coverage is not substantial, multiple independent sources have been cited. The company gained notability from those sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by carlab212 (talk • contribs)

FT cites: "For Quintessential Capital Management, the hedge fund behind last week's report, it was a victory. Source:https://www.ft.com/content/f5b57c18-7e37-11e5-a1fe-567b37f80b64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globo_plc has a link to the page Quintessential Capital Management confirming it is main player in discovering the fraud. talk

Delete. The word "quintessential" doesn't appear in any of the non-paywall sources cited for the section on American Addiction Centers. (I could change my mind if they are prominently mentioned in the paywall articles.)

In addition, I ran a Google search on the company excluding the word "globo": "quintessential capital management" -globo. Nothing useful for establishing notability was returned, only 21 hits in all. So, at least for purposes of WP:GNG, one could make a case for sufficient coverage in sources dealing with the Globo case—but, then, I believe WP:ONEEVENT applies. Largoplazo (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the company can easily be found at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked all the links you listed and, except for the first one (regular Google search), which I already discussed above, there are zero hits, which doesn't qualify as easily found. Largoplazo (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Likewise--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just not enough significant secondary coverage to be considered notable. Passing mentions do not contribute very much.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles connecting Quintessential to the American Addiction debacle:

WSJ: https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/08/05/blog-post-from-college-student-causes-massive-sell-off-in-aac-holdings/ [second-last paragraph is about Quintessential: "Gabriel Grego, who runs the New York and Tel Aviv-based hedge fund Quintessential Capital Management LLC, said he first took a look at AAC stock after reading Mr. Drose’s March post. He and his team, which hold a short position, have spent the last several months conducting their own research."
https://seekingalpha.com/pro/checkout/3342015?notice=pro (paywall but you can see the fund's prominent logo)
https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/health-care/2015/08/as-fallout-from-murder-charge-continues-aac-stock.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: bizj_national (Bizjournals National Feed)&utm_content=Google International (see 7th paragraph).

Yakag (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC) connected contributor[reply]

The last two are the same article. What they have to say about QCM is contained in a single sentence: "Quintessential Capital Management, another firm short on AAC, has written similar reports on the company’s drug testing practices and other issues within the company." This isn't significant coverage. Neither is mentioning that someone being quoted in an article runs a company, as in the WSJ article, significant coverage of the company. Largoplazo (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one of the links, it was a re-print. Still, all the material taken together gives a measure of notoriety and of course WSJ is a highly reputable source. Best. Yakag (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC) connected contributor[reply]

The WSJ's reputation suits it for establishing verifiability but it's immaterial to a notability evaluation of a subject if it does no more than mention the subject's name in passing. But now I'm quibbling over individual sources with you. See what I wrote above about how, overall, one might indeed be able to make a case that there's sufficient coverage of Quintessential—but only in connection with that one case, so I wondered whether WP:ONEEVENT might come into play. No one has responded to that. Largoplazo (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth K. Hansraj

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

Fails WP:NBIO/WP:NPROF. Most Ghits are him being cited as an "expert" in articles but I couldn't find any coverage of him personally. Possible undisclosed COI by author, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#International_Project_Management_Association. shoy (reactions) 14:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As written, this article fails to satisfy notability criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - However, please comment on content, not contributors. Let the matter of COI be decided in a proper forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable as written. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NPROF and the coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 12:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG as others have pointed out. Seems like a smart guy, but not a notable one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:55, 23 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. Even if we accept that Darkodazines doesn't have a COI, he hasn't made a policy-based argument to keep. A Train^talk 16:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PrimaveraReader (software)

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

Non-notable software that was previously deleted via AfD. The reason I am not nominating this as G4 is that it does have additional reviews from this year: I don't think that solves the underlying problem, they are from blogs or other non-reliable sources so it still doesn't meet the coverage prong of WP:N. The article is also promotional in tone and has been created by a declared paid editor, so exclusion under WP:NOTSPAM also makes it fail the second prong of the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI NOTE (per WP:DISCLOSE): I have previously written documentation for the Oracle Primavera suite of software. They do not pay me to edit Wikipedia, nor to engage in AfD's about third-party software. If you think this should exclude me from this AfD, feel free to strike my !vote, and leave a note on my talk page.

This article fails WP:V and WP:NOR, and the provided sources are all blog posts and press releases - nothing that reliable enough to establish the notability of the subject. menaechmi (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:AVOIDCOI and WP:DISCLOSE, I'm not a paid editor, but rather a creator that knows people who do technology. Everyone is connected with someone on some way. It is an original research that aims to inform people, and answer most of the questions of audience's concerns. I believe I followed Wikipedia guidelines, and gave the public reliable, trustworthy, piece of content. The names behind the references, and even the Software Assessment Form are welcomed for any project management oriented software. In meantime, I've made a few changes to improve the tone. As a newbie, I'm expecting more support by experienced editors, and article deletion will discouraging for me to support Wikipedia with new and better articles. Thanks.Darko Atanasov 15:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkodazines (talk • contribs)
Delete - blogs and sponsored marketing sites are generally not acceptable sources. On a sidenote: an encyclopedic article is not supposed to provide comprehensive product descriptions including each and every minor detail, but a succinct overview of significant facts about a notable topic. Additional information like a detailed UI description belong on the product's homepage or in a manual, not on Wikipedia (see also WP:NOTGUIDE). GermanJoe (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. just a little to show significance as the previously deleted article. The attempted defense of the article above indicates additional reasons why it should be deleted. It is generaly not a good idea for a new editor to write an articles on a small firm or its product, but rather pick a topic whose notability is clear. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as given, nac, SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RCD Espanyol cantera

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

Non-notable subsidiary of a football club in Spain, lack of coverage. No inherited notability. Redirect to parent article RCD Espanyol. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP (sports notability criteria doesn't apply to sports teams) - TheMagnificentist 14:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 14:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 14:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 14:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Several such articles exist for the top Spanish club youth sections. Espanyol have produced many elite players so their setup is significant in that respect, and they have also won the national competitions several times in recent years. That is all in the article, sourced in some cases and linked in others. Current Squad list and other dynamic info requires to be updated for new season, but previous one only ended a few weeks ago and I was planning to update this in the next few weeks when I had sufficient time to get it all correct, (which takes longer when working primarily from another language) rather than trying to rush it. There is plenty of independent media coverage available, so to add CN tags or a RefImprove hatnote would perhaps be fair in the first instance. But to simply blank-redirect to the main club article with out warning, giving me and others no chance to rectify any of the issues identified (either via the article or personal talk pages) is an unnecessary overreaction in my opinion. Previous discussions regarding these articles have taken place at WP:FOOTY fairly recently here, here and here, which acknowledge that they can be notable when the academy is very productive and/or successful in its own sphere, rather than just being a youth team attached to a famous name club. I believe the Espanyol article fulfils these requirements, although as stated above it maybe needs more independent citations to reinforce this notability.Crowsus (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:GNG with plenty of coverage and citations. Also per Crowsus's !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff King (consultant)

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

Fails WP:BASIC by a wide margin. With the exception of this article on the Local page of the Sioux City Iowa Journal, nothing but passing mentions and a few quotations found (even after asking author). WP:BLP1E (and not a very notable E) and WP:NOTINHERITED also apply. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree, a reasonably short search will see that he has many sources of citation and has sought publicity for his father and, in turn, his abilities as a political, pr, operative.--Wikipietime (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing of substance on Jeff. Even the CNN article mentions him in the context of his father (son signs on to a campaign which is an indicator of how his father is leaning - the important bit is what it says about his father's supposed views). Notability is not inherited. He may have worked for his father etc., but I am not seeing notability in its own right. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lard Almighty what about this statement "Except this article on the Local page of the Sioux City Iowa Journal, nothing but passing mentions and a few quotations found (even after asking author). " refering to http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/jeff-king-plays-big-role-in-his-father-s-campaigns/article_0337fbe5-fd7c-52af-b9e9-c9b11bd38c42.html

It is of substance and by an Iowa institution Sioux City Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipietime (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people who aren't notable play big roles in lots of things. Simply haven't come up with the kind of coverage (certainly not "many sources of citation") I would need to see to change my mind. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPOL, & WP:GNG. Mr. King is the son of and is/was the campaign manager for his father Steve King, the Congressman from Iowa, but I have been unable to find any in-depth reliable sources that cover Jeff King (apart from his job in his father's campaign) in depth. Shearonink (talk) 22:58, 22 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. Given the subject's search-engine-defying name, no prejudice against re-creation of the article with proper sourcing. A Train^talk 16:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh (artist)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NMG and fails WP:RS. Zazzysa (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not satisfying our music notability standards as no coverage exists. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's annoying when a subject has a very common name as it makes sources really hard to find (eg: Marsh, Devon). Nevertheless, I can't find a thing that shows notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hexahydroxy-2,3-naphthalenedione

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

Dubious existence, and lack of notability. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of Chemical Abstracts turns up no reference to this chemical compound in the scientific literature. Isomers of this compound such as spinochrome E (hexahydroxy-1,4-naphthalenedione) are known, but only as very minor components of extracts from certain sea urchins. Maybe if there was something notable to say about related compounds the article could be broadened in scope to encompass a class of compounds, but as far as I can tell nothing suggests anything close to meeting the general notability guideline for this specific chemical compound or for a class of closely related compounds. Deli nk (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if, as stated, there is no conclusive evidence that the compound exists. If a paper referring to the compound can be found, keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does it have a CAS number? If it has a CAS number, the article should be kept, even if the compound has not in fact been isolated. Have its properties been calculated computationally? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merely having a CAS number is insufficient reason to keep an article. Chemistry articles are not exempt from WP:GNG (see WP:NCHEM). ChemNerd (talk) 11:19, 23 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xwt

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Ajgorhoe who provided a rationale on Talk:Xwt, but sadly I read it as WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and without sources to back this up I am afraid it's time for a wider discussion here. PS. Ajgorhoe also suggested this could be merged to MonoDevelop, which I am not opposed to, but the fact that MonoDevelop doesn't even mention Xwt is IMHO a further underlining of this software lack of importance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary sources are cited (but more relevant and representative citations should be added). Xwt is important as one of the GUI toolkits developed in the scope of the Mono project. It is notable for use of different back-ends on different platforms, a distinguished design by which native look an feel is achieved. In my opinion, this article should be equipped with additional references and its contents should be improved, I hope somebody with more knowledge about the subject will come across. Note that search for references is a bit difficult in this case due to very unfortunate and ambiguous selection of name. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: MonoDevelop does not mention Xwt (as Piotrus mentions above), but Mono does. A remark made above - that MonoDevelop does not mention Xwt, which is a further underlining of this software's lack of importance - might be a formal fallacy. Such a fact could equally well mean that Wikipedia's coverage is not developing at a good pace. If there is something on it, might this be related to habit of holding the finger too tightly on the "deletion trigger"? --Ajgorhoe (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. Merging Xwt with Mono was just an idea, not necessarily the best one. Somebody with more knowledge about the subject should give opinion on this, perhaps with arguments expressed on the Talk page.
Delete -- no notability established by the article, and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is something notable, that should be clear after looking at the page. As written, it does not pass at all our notability guidelines. My very best wishes (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to comment on the suggested merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A lot of software projects want to have wikipedia articles. There is no indication that this on meets notability requirements to merit one. ~Kvng (talk) 19:57, 21 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PayTech of Things

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

apparent neologism. I can not find any actual use of the full term. There are uses for PayTech in the sense meant here, such as ref 2. But it is also the name of a payroll processing firm and a financial transactions intermediate, neither notable and I think altogether unconnected. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cabayi (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated to include reference to the term used by Tony Craddock, the Director General of the Emerging Payments Association (EPA). It refers to use of the term within the EPA, which is the leading trade body representing senior business leaders and thought leaders across the electronic payments industry.JbanksBTM (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately what you have added appears promotional for your organization. Do you have evidence of its use in general publications or even trade publications to describe the class of objects? DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I am not employed by the Emerging Payments Association (EPA) or a member of their organisation. The EPA is a professional membership body and so does not produce or sell any products related to the Paytech of Things. Mr Craddock is speaking in his professional capacity as the Director General of the EPA and is summarising the content of conversations he has conducted among members. As requested, I have found an additional reference to the term in an article published in RealWire, the respected payments news website. I apologise if I did not provide adequate information initially. JbanksBTM (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JbanksBTM, Realwire is a press release website, not a news website, and comes nowhere near the standards required by Wikipedia's view of reliable sources. Also, could you explain your relationship to User:PayTechGuy since you seem to have copied his sandbox to mainspace for this article, robbing him of the attribution required? Cabayi (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion over the User name. I am PayTechGuy and have clearly managed to press a wrong button when publishing the page. I am happy to correct this if necessary if you could direct me to some instructions for how to do so. Many thanks. JbanksBTM (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JbanksBTM, There's no problem in starting afresh with a new account. But stick to the new account, don't use both. WP:SOCK explains the rules. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The financial services news service called Bob's Guide also referenced the PayTech of Things. JbanksBTM (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Search is hampered by "see also" links of current pages for old things but from what I can see the phrase appears only in a couple of Craddock articles all published in the last week or two. Maybe it will catch on, but at the moment it is a very fresh neologism of a single person. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 21 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. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Khan Ghori

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. No source per WP:RS. No notable award. I failed to find sources in Urdu language too to avoid system bias. Greenbörg (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable award. being elected as the secretary or president of the Karachi Press Club doesn't makes one notable either. no sign of notability. --Saqib (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 21 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 Sahabah. So Why 20:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayatus Sahabah

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

Unsourced; fails WP:NBOOK. DrStrauss talk 08:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - does fail Nbook, although the a redirect from Hayatus sahabah to Sahabah might make sense. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss the proposed redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Redirect makes sense, I am fine for that to happen w/o the page being deleted. For some reasont he page's title is showing up as a redlink, but is loading and displaying properly. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bewick

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

Unashamed promotional article by someone whose only activity other than being the creator and major contributor to this article revolves around excessive promotion of another band. Riddled with issues. GNG and WP:Music being the primary ones for this nomination. Also effectively unreferenced - discogs and imdb profiles only. Excessive discography list with no references and no indication of his role in them. Click through all the aliases, variations and incarnations on the discogs profile page and there's no suggestion that we're getting anywhere near notability.

Main discogs page Discogs for Dirty Rotten Scoundrels - the article implies that DRS are a notable group such that membership of conveys notability. this link suggests otherwise. another profile of an alias (these are not cherry-picked to support the nom)
and another. subject has numerous aliases but all very low level releases, maybe a remix on a very non-notable track, one appearance on a random compilation album. seems to be a trend across the few aliases used by subject. overall it seems like the sum total falls short of notability - general or music.
Rather than tidying it and then nominating it, i'm leaving it in its original form. Commenters can then see the list of awards (unreferenced) which are seemingly insignificant awards with regards to notability (no article and nothing on google). Rayman60 (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 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 13:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find very little on this producer. Certainly not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 21 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) 20:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Carroll

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

WP:BLP of a municipal councillor, in a village not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its municipal councillors under WP:NPOL. This is not based on enough reliable sources to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, either -- of the seven sources here, two are primary sources (his own self-published profiles on the websites of his own political party and his own law firm), one is a user-generated local community wiki and one is a local WordPress blog, and the three remaining media sources are purely WP:ROUTINE since every municipal councillor everywhere could always show three pieces of purely local coverage. At this level of government, what it takes to get an article is evidence that he's significantly more notable than the norm by virtue of having garnered significantly more coverage than village councillors routinely get, but nothing here is demonstrating any evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; the sources here just don't establish notability. --Kbabej (talk) 22:00, 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 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The routine coverage in local news is insufficient for the subject to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Deli nk (talk) 16:41, 21 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 with given comments, SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Krendi

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

Refs seem to all come from RAF web pages; discussion in multiple independent secondary sources is lacking. KDS4444 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you serious? Of course RAF bases are notable. And none of the references are from "RAF web pages". Not one. Bizarre nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the nominator is pointing is that most of the current refs are from https://www.rafht.co.uk/, www.rafweb.org, and the like, which are all dedicated RAF sites or blogs in terms of the area of interest. Also, in terms of web searching, RAF Qrendi seems to be a valid alternate spelling. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, that's a matter for article improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:MILNG. I see no criterion for bases. Further, once you strip out the fan sites there's not much left for general notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes on GNG,WP:MILUNIT(7), and probably WP:GEOLAND (Most british bases had housing and were sparate legal entities). The base hosted a few squadrons, up to aroung a wing, of spitfires thus exceeding the squadron level cutoff. Plenty of book references found in quick before in google books, deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: How? MILUNIT specifies that "Air force, naval, or marine aviation squadrons, wings, groups, and commands" could be notable and that might apply to the three fighter squadrons that were stationed on Krendi, but not the runway and buildings. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The base commander is, in many air forces, the commander with authority over the stationed squadrons. Thus, this is greater than a squadron. Futhermore I will note that most military bases are deemed notable. This is rarely a question. It might be a question for a small barracks or a group of tents but not an airfield which is not a small installation.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by Necrothesp and Icewhiz. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any RAF base will be featured in multiple independent sources. Matt's talk 23:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RAF Qrendi has a coat of arms / official Station badge, which ALONE confers notability!!!!!!!! [7]--Petebutt (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WWII RAF base is certainly notable. The complaint about a single source should be addressed by tagging it for better sources, not through AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With no surprise within 2 seconds of searching I found combined significant coverage from the Imperial War Museum and The Malta Independent. [8][9]. I don't believe for a second WP:BEFORE was adhered to. Why was an article about an air force base AfD'd only about 2 1/2 hours after article creation? [10] --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RAF WWII bases are notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources added in the last few days seem sufficient to suggest it passes WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that this satisfies the WP:GNG now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 16:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knappily

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

Non-notable company/app. Lack of significant coverage. - TheMagnificentist 11:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON / WP:ARTSPAM and mostly trivia as in: "As on April 26, 2017, the app has over 1 lakh downloads with 4.8 rating[3] on Play Store!" Etc. WP:CORPDEPTH fail and completely unremarkable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be valid as defined by WP:GNG, but if this topic goes out of business right now, it doesn't have a history that would sustain an article of enduring interest. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. The statement of what it "intends" to present is of negative value, as it shows there is nothing to say now about the project. Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone would like the article moved to their userspace, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilo (search engine)

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

Non-notable search engine. Unable to locate any significant coverage that are reliable and independent of the topic. - TheMagnificentist 10:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find anything else significant in WP:RS. shoy (reactions) 15:09, 21 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 Larrikin Love. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Leeson

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

Fails WP:BAND Mdann52 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BAND Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 11:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Larrikin Love - possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 19:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above. He isn't notable by himself but is a likely search term for the band's article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:51, 21 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 16:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saru Maini

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

Non-notable singer. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 07:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No major work and achievement. Fails WP:NMUSIC--Elton-Rodrigues 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:30, 21 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. A clear consensus for deletion exists in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Bergstedt

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

WP:BLP1E. Appears to be mostly covered for one crime, and is borderline notable for his career. Mdann52 (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: The article should be made a draft, immediately. Just reading one sentence makes me think it's not ready for the public: "having made the compositions of the children's musical Ronia", - "having made the compositions" instead of a simple "composed", then a link not the musical in question but the book on which it is based. This article is focused on the crime unduely. If we have to have an article on the person, translate the German one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is far away from Wikipedia style. The career has not enough notability. The second supposed crime is only an accusation and cannot be kept, because it is offending the rules of wikipedia in Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." It seems that the brazilian contributor, who first posted these defamatory parts of the article in the portuguese wikipedia, is an personal enemy of Axel Bergstedt or his daughter. The first crime has been committed 22 years ago. The police, after some years, is cleaning the papers of a person, because a person has a right for rehabilitation. This has been recommended also for wikipedia, as written in the article about rehabilitation in the german wikipedia. So, I think, there is no reason for to keep the article.Ceyla de Wilka (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have notified both the article and this discussion to the BLP Notice Board for further input. Regardless of the notability issue, there are aspects of the current content which in my view violate our policy on Biographies of living persons. Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The BLP violations are too numerous to accept, and the use of Wikipedia's voice to assert facts which have not been found in a court of law is questionable at best. As far as I can tell, the person does not meet notability standards required by Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the subject is insufficiently notable, fails WP:GNG. A WP:BLP1E case. Edwardx (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, which obviously had coverage in Hamburg where the murder occurred and some more when the person convicted absconded to Brazil and was eventually apprehended. But the article's subject is essentially only notable for having been convicted of that crime. If it were solely based on the subject's career as a musician and did not mention the crime, it would fail the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO pretty comprehensively. No major awards, no recordings with independent coverage, and a bit part in a non-notable movie. The participation in the heavy metal album The Time of the Oath is greatly exaggerated. He merely conducted the children's choir which sings on one of the tracks. He also composed a children's musical, which has received virtually no coverage that I can find apart from a recent production by a local school in Schermbeck, or mention of it in passing in articles about the murder. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 22 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. Restoration of any entry can be requested on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gia na xereis alaniari

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

I came across these articles when going through the New Pages Feed. They are all created by the same user, Samizambak, and are all stubs, mostly under 100 words. All are about "anonymous Turkish folk tunes", the vast majority are either completely unreferenced or rely on a single source. They appear to fail music notability guidelines and the general notability guideline and the lack of sources makes detracts from their verifiability. I used the reviewer talk page as a sounding board and MrX recommended deletion. Please also note the consensus gained on similar recent mass creations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open access in Vietnam. The article List of anonymous Turkish folk songs already exists but appears to have not been edited by the user who created these stubs. Therefore, I recommend the deletion of these articles, with no prejudice to recreation of some if sources can be found and the content can be expanded, and to extend an invitation to Samizambak to expand List of anonymous Turkish folk songs.

TL;DR: delete all per WP:V, WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG with no prejudice to recreation and invite Samizambak to expand the already-existing list.

Note to admin: if the result is delete, please note that there are numerous redirects to these pages which will need deletion too.

DrStrauss talk 10:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - with the recommendation to have Samizambak expand List of anonymous Turkish folk songs. I had found several of these stubs during new page patrol, and redirected them to the list article, after adding them. If this subject interested me at all, I'd take up the task, but unfortunately it doesn't. Your rationale seems spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Sjö (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. However, I see no need to rush to delete within 7 days, but give time to engage with @Samizambak: and for them to transfer content into List of anonymous Turkish folk songs. Some people do have holidays and even a life outside of Wikipedia, I'm told, and this is a fair bit of work to lose and to have to redo from scratch. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: possibly, but process is important in these instances. In any event, if Samizambak is "away" right now, I'm sure an administrator will be willing to provide them with copies of their deleted articles so they can improve them. DrStrauss talk 12:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The articles fail WP:GNG, WP:NSONG, WP:RS and (in some cases) WP:OR. Perhaps some of them could be combined into a list article if sources are available to show WP:LISTN notability.- Mr X 15:14, 21 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Car Congress

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

This is one of those cases of confusing the criteria for Identifying reliable sources with Notability. We don't create an article on every source that qualifies as reliable. The citations here consist of examples of Green Car Congress being cited in major media, or what WP:WEBCRIT calls "trivial coverage". There is no substantial coverage of the website itself, regardless of how strong a case to be made that it may be cited as a reliable source. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 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 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:26, 21 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 prejudice against speedy renomination). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Vandervaart

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

WP:BLP of a teen actor, not yet demonstrated or properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. Whereas NACTOR requires multiple major roles, Vandervaart has had one major role and a bunch of minor supporting ones -- and the sourcing here rests entirely on community weekly pennysavers in his own hometown rather than major market dailies, so there aren't sufficient grounds to claim that he passes WP:GNG yet. One noteworthy role would be enough if he got an award nomination, or if the sourcing showed that he was getting much more widespread media coverage, for it -- but one noteworthy role is not enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on an actor just because he exists. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but neither the sourcing nor the substance present here are good enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 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 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Victor

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

Music artist and actor who has some assertion of notability, but the sources cited aren't useful for establishing notability (primary sources, IMDB, directory listings, etc.). Article was created by a corporate Wikipedia account (the subject's own organization, now blocked), apparently in an attempt at self-promotion. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 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 07:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:26, 21 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. as although nobody voted "keep", there was such little discussion, so WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Under The Stars

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. The creator has an obvious COI. SL93 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:RS, fails WP:NCORP. shoy (reactions) 15:02, 21 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. A Train^talk 16:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Service Corporation (disambiguation)

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

Delete because the 2 entries on this disambiguation page refer to the same thing. Public Service Railway redirects to Transport of New Jersey#Public Service Railway which talks about "Public Service Corporation of New Jersey"; Public Service Enterprise Group in the lede says "founded as the Public Service Corporation of New Jersey". Speedy deletion (WP:G6) was declined by user:Basalisk. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:23, 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 12:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Public Service Corporation can refer to three parts of one parent company: The transportation organization (defunct), the utilities (currently operating), or the parent company (defunct). The articles themselves could probably be merged (Transport of New Jersey -> NJ Transit, Public Service Corporation -> Public Service Enterprise Group), but for now the disambiguation seems needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menaechmi (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Penna

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT, having only played in Italy's second-tier league. Only routine press coverage, nothing that meets the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually did play in Lega Basket Serie A in the 2015-16 season. See here. So he does meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I agree with evidence shown. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2 as he appears to meet the WP:NBASKETBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 16:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon Academy Awards

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

Non-notable awards ceremony. I can't find evidence of it happening after the first occurance. Own site is dead, facebook un-updated in years, only refs here are dead with no archive and/or press-release. DMacks (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 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 13:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable awards ceremony.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 20:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safdar Zaidi

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

No reliable sources per WP:RS. No real world notability as search produces nothing. Writing single novel and translating to Dutch language won't make someone notable. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. No notable awards or done something special. Fails WP:GNG

Source 1: Daily Dharti, not notable as it is a local online website. Its posts are related to the problems faced by Pakistani diaspora and can't be trusted. Source 3,5,8 are related to the same website which is a local unreliable source. Source 4 discuss him but that single source doesn't show he has done something special.

Adding to that I searched local Urdu newspapers and can't find anything. He doesn't have an article on Dutch or Urdu Wikipedia. If anyone has any reliable sources please post and I will have no objection. Greenbörg (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author of non-notable novel/books therefore fails WP:AUTHOR. cited sources are not reliable except one noted above but as said it doesn't discuss the subject in detail. --Saqib (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete' Moona Sehgal (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails as author notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.48.166 (talk • contribs)
Delete Fails GNG, unconvincing sourcing in article. Previous !vote was not properly formatted. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanlife Products

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

Article about a non-notable company. Available sources are press releases and routine coverage about venture capital. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 10:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, sources do not appear to cover the subject company in detail. Not notable per WP:NOTE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 15:03, 21 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 prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Soldier

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Some coverage by fan/collector sites, but nothing significant. Can't see this getting past WP:PRODUCT Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 21 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 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Rox

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

Does not meet notability criteria in WP:ENT. Krychek (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT. --Hirsutism (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 08:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 21 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. A Train^talk 16:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham & James

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. There are mentions of this law firm in reliable sources, but not the significant coverage that would get it past notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 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 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any claim to notability. On the positive side, it does have 1 reference to an independent reliable source, but that's not enough. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although lengthy sources directly about this old law firm are not easy to find, it was an important player in the law business for decades (especially on the West Coast). Sources exist (200 or so at HighBeam, dozens at latimes.com & sfgate.com) and the content about this firm's history is relevant, at least, to the histories of the multiple notable firms that absorbed different parts of this firm as it broke apart. Arguably the content could be added to those firms' articles but I think it would be clearer for the reader to keep all of this firm's history together in one place. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dilwale (2015 film). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janam Janam

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

The subject does not have WP:SIGCOV by reliable and independent sources. Other reliable sources mention the song passingly while discussing about the film it is from, or the actors/singers. Fails WP:GNG. Passes WP:MILL though. This song can be discussed appropriately in the article of the film it is from. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Administrators please take a note of this user @Usernamekiran:, this user is stalking me as well as my contributions, most of my articles to are well sourced and have many coverages, but still this guy is placing deletion tags. The users article creation log shows he have created less than 5 articles ,the user is not involved in content creation ,but tries to delete others creation. Anoptimistix (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoptimistix: ~~I think your previous comment better fits in WP:ANI.~~ —usernamekiran(talk) 03:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Dilwale (2015 film). The song does have RS mentions, but they are in the context of the film, so per WP:NSONG it doesn't warrant an article independent from the film.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Done. Added independent coverage of the song by reputed and reliable Indian news Media Indian Express.Now I think it qualifies notability criteria of the song as it has an independent coverage Anoptimistix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 7 July 2017(UTC)

Redirect to the article Dilwale (2015 film). The song fails Wikipedia:NSONGS.--Elton-Rodrigues 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 21 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Bayazid

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

Does not meet notability guidelines under WP:FILMMAKER. References do not establish the subject as a notable filmmaker. There are claims to notability via an award for an unnamed film given at an unnamed film festival, with no third-party substantiation. One of the references is a tumblr page; the other does establish that he ran afoul of the Assad government, but not that he is notable as a filmmaker. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 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 07:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:20, 21 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 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wajeha Khan Durani

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

may have minor rules in the TV programmes. doesn't seems to meet WP:ACTORS. Saqib (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I found no reliable source which demonstrate his notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT too. Greenbörg (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, non-notable individual.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:21, 23 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) 20:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Carter Spann

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

Fails WP:BIO. Relatives of presidents are not inherently notable; she was not a first lady and had no official role during her brother's presidency. She needs to pass WP:BIO on her own, and she fails at that. Kbabej (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- probably NN. Notability is not inherited (e.g. from a brother). She campaigned for her brothers' election, but so did lots of people; and I am not sure that being the victim of attempted blackmail is notable, unless this was particularly notorious. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the very interesting ! vote by ip (68.95.106.101) at the last AfD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've now added this material to the article and provided references; she appears to me to meet GNG, NPOV, NOR, and V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jimmy_Carter#Family where the subject is mention. Not notable for a stand-alone article; the article is completely uncited -- if someone wants to dig for sources, they could restore it. For now, a redirect is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I still day not separately notable. Either delete or better redirect to family section of her brother. I have read the IP's contribution on the previous AFD and still do not consider it enough to make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added refs for Spann's life from newspapers.com, three are about Spann particularly, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/12521596/, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/12425167/ukiah_daily_journal/, and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/12425443/jimmys_sister_out_of_tune_the/. Each of these were carried in different forms by papers throughout the country, as was her obituary. Much of her biography can also be verified in book form by searching around google books, although most (all?) of these mentions are in books or chapters of books about Jimmy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the newly mentioned sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We simply do not delete articles on people with obituaries (not paid death notices) in the New York Times [11], Los Angeles Times [12], and Washington Post [13], regardless of their actual accomplishments or even-more-famous relatives. These people have been noted; therefore (per WP:GNG) they are notable. There's also a short obit in American Motorcyclist [14] if you want a little more color, and something else she was known as besides Jimmy's brother and a blackmail victim: she was well known as a motorcycle enthusiast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 23:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Smmurphy and David Eppstein. Obituaries in the Associated Press (published in The New York Times), the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post clearly establish notability.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
As noted at WP:NOTINHERITED:
The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar.
As noted in the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria (my bolding):
That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability.
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of articles in both newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com over time which establish clearly meets GNG. Poor writing is not the basis for deleting an article. Her notability from her own motorcycle involvement is sufficient to establish her notability as independent. SusunW (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The obits alone are enough. Passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Ratio

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

Does not appear to be a notable product, as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article talk more about other products rather than Happy Ratio itself. A7 was declined by Ritchie333 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Argument

I am not sure where I provide the argument to not delete the article, so I will just do it here. Happy Ratio is made by the SAME people that made The Perfect Meal, and SupermealX. The SupermealX and it's creator (Harsh Batra) were featured in very crdible media such as the New York Times, Economic Times, etc. Happy Ratio is the evolution and in a sense a rebranding of the SupermealX, so every article about th e SupermealX does apply to Happy Ratio as well, including of course NYTimes. To sum it up, Happy Ratio WAS SupermealX till a couple of months ago, and this new iteration just rebrands and markets ot more properly, but everything else is about the same as SupermealX (which recieved a lot of coverage and was clearly a notable product, hence the same applied to Happy Ratio). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshinvader (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinebot signature, messing up table of contents on the log page, "WE WAZ IN NOO YURK TIMEZ!!1"... obvious COI SPA is obvious. KMF (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE

I added a history section to the article. Hope it makes clear that this is a notable product as it has received coverage from trusted news organisations.

Can I now go ahead and remove the deletion warning?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshinvader (talk • contribs)

Comment. I restored the AFD template which was removed from the article by 114.79.178.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Deli nk (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Deli nk (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of WP:RS. shoy (reactions) 15:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 20:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Soleimani

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

Non-notable person. Lacks GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are internal water polo related, no indepdent sourcing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG per nom. Refs in article are all from the same site. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus which defaults to keep. NightwingGuy, please don't be discouraged that your first article was nominated for deletion -- it has happened to a lot of veteran editors. You may wish to keep WP:BAND handy as you continue to improve the article. A Train^talk 16:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Ceballos Sanchez

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

No evidence of independent notability, apart from the notability of the band itself. JTtheOG (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable outside musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confused sorry for the lack of sources on my part, This is my first article and think that he deserves a page, he is part of the Spain community in music and he's starting to become a featured artist for several other artists songs. I will provide more sources and give only information on him and not his group, I will also make sure it's reliable with sources from news and media outlets. Sorry for this misunderstanding to JTtheOG, for not being impressed with the work, I'll try to do my best in fixing this article. Have a nice day. NightwingGuy (talk) 18:12, 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 14:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article was expanded after the nomination for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 21 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 Decepticons. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skywarp

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am unable to vote for a redirect to List of Decepticons because WP:ILIKEIT too much. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect name only to List of Decepticons. There's nothing to merge as the content is largely uncited original research; what's cited is trivia sourced to blogs, fan pages and other unsuitable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because List of Decepticons as been a redirect to Lists of Transformers characters since July 1, so "redirect" would just be a circuitous way of saying delete. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the proposed redirect/merge target no longer exists, where to instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nowhere suitable to merge, just delete it. Wikipedia is not benefiting from these hundreds (thousands?) of terrible Transformers articles sitting around for years (over a decade, in many cases); the people who care about these have had long enough to fix them- it's time for a clear-out. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- GretLomborg and Josh Milburn, since the topic of the Decepticon page as an article or redirect is an issue here, you may want to view the discussion at Talk:Lists of Transformers characters#Proposed merge with List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To again answer the question where to merge/redirect to. I currently see no consensus to delete but neither to keep as it is but without target this can't be closed as redirect or merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as an acceptable solution, no merge since the contents are considered unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 16:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians in Canada

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

This small group doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The population figures can be covered at Ethnic origins of people in Canada. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is almost inherently notable, in my opinion. - The census-taker has seen fit to collect statistics about them - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the National Household Survey asked a question about ethnicity, and some people wrote in "Georgian". See Q17 here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Statistically insignificant population group with no indication of notability or significance. Cjhard (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 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 13:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obvious keep, really. As already a quick look at Template:People of Canada, this is (as already pointed out) almost inherently notable. That the group is relatively small does not make the topic less notable. No viable reason to delete. Jeppiz (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The practice lately has been to delete similar articles, Jeppiz, so I'm not sure they can be considered inherently notable. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutian Americans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djiboutians in the Netherlands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahamian British (2nd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry, not sure you need to answer every comment - but of course I don't mind, if you want to. Yes, you have been nominating similar articles for deletion before, as those discussions show. I respect that, but I don't agree with you. I actually find Any nationality in any country to be notable. We don't have too little space, and any of these articles is to some extent notable (much more notable than unknown football players in fifth tier, whom Wikipedia for some reason consider notable). If we decide they are not notable, then where do we draw the line. Why would Americans in Canada be notable but not Georgians in Canada. More numerous, sure, but then we're back to the line. 1000 people? 5000? 10.000? Actually, I once read a long and fascinating article on the only Jew remaining in Afghanistan. 1 person, yet notable. So my answers would be that any nationality in any country is a notable topic, and I see no reason to delete any of them. Jeppiz (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about there being a numerical threshold, Jeppiz. Notability is judged by whether there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Bigger groups are more likely to attract that sort of coverage, but there's nothing to say that a small group can't have been subject to it. In this case, the sources to demonstrate notability simply don't exist (unless you can prove me wrong). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 21 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) 20:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny McKinnon

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

No indication of notability with the exception of Kohaku from Inuyasha. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:05, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed — every actor has had roles, or else they wouldn't be an actor. Rather, to be considered notable an actor needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about him in media, and is not exempted from that just because he has an IMDb profile. But no reliable source referencing is being shown here at all, and no sourcing means no article. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's point on role listings.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - voicing Kohaku for episodes 102 to 167 doesn't scream notability to me. It would have been much better if the character had only a single voice actor/actress play the part. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any news articles from ANN that discuss McKinnon. No convention appearances in animecons.com. News article searches show other random Danny McKinnons. ANN's filmography shows him voicing an anime-only character in Galaxy Angel A, but it's not a main character (down on the list). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as made-up by creator and no claim of notability. (A7, A11) (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer Maulana Muhammad Ali

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

fails to meet WP:GNG. cited sources not RS. Saqib (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 21 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. Very happy to userfy the page upon request -- just swing by my talk page. A Train^talk 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Blinds AKA Filmmaking 101

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - Mr X 10:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not seeing anything better than this coverage at launch of this Youtube series. Enough to verify existence but not demonstrating encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

Delete and Userfy back to author. While not unsourcable,[15] the series has not received quite enough coverage to meet WP:NWEB and/or WP:NF, but as it is gearing up for its second season, that might change. I encourage the author to build upon the work I've done and seek a return when/if there is more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pasha Kerimov

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

Deprodded without rationale by article's creator. All the current citations are simple listings or primary sources. Couldn't find any in-depth coverage of this individual through searches. Can't even find a single citation count for him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 23 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. I will treat this as a softdelete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open Identity Exchange UK Europe

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

Duplicate of Open Identity Exchange Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:36, 21 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 clear consensus despite two relists. No prejudice to renomination in few months if sourcing hasn't improved. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina Trade and Cultural Office

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

fails WP:ORG. Embassies which this is a de facto one are not inherently notable. Gnews turns up 1 hit when I searched English (actually a Chinese story) and 2 Hits in Spanish. 1 which only mentioned the office in 1 line. Also as a side point, I hardly think the tall tower in article is entire office. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 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 14:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is the de facto embassy between two countries that have no formal ties. See also Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Argentina which is the counterpart to this article. These represent the only two formal organizations between the two countries, and communications is between just these two buildings. There are more sources on the sister article, but these are two sides of the same coin, one can not exist without the other. WP:N isn't a lot of help on these kinds of articles, but there are sources for the pair, and common sense says we should keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're arguing for inherent notability when there isn't any. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hi, I noticed that a similar article already exists, which is Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Argentina. Perhaps a redirect or merger is better.~~ I'm dumb, nevermind. Keep. BTW, I found a Link (in portuguese) with information about that embassy in Taipei. So at the very least, it does exist. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 14:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

existing is not the same as being notable. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment none of the keep !voters have given evidence of significant third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 22 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merrill Gay

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future mayoral election is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, as the creator wrongly claimed when removing the prod notice a few hours ago: if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election per se. But neither serving on a school board nor being executive director of a non-profit organization constitutes a notability freebie either: school board is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL at all, and the organizational work is referenced to the organization's own self-published content about itself, not to any reliable source coverage about his work in that role which would get him past WP:GNG for it. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's longstanding procedure here that merely being a candidate, even a favourite, is not alone sufficient grounds for notability. I don't see any other compelling reason why this person would quality for WP:BIO; he's involved with some entities that may be notable but I'm not seeing the coverage of him himself that would justify keeping the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thank you to seb26 for an unusually clear and exhaustively argued nomination. A Train^talk 16:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Rush Condon

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

Subject isn't notable enough. WP:ARTIST is the criteria most relevant here. I'll address its points specifically.

First it speaks to the need for artists (1) being widely regarded, generally being cited by peers, or contributing a technique, and so on. None of the reliable sources ([16], [17], [18] The Australian, view this with google cache, [19]) or one other I found ([20]) speak extensively at all about the artist, only ever in relation to the portrait they are mentioning. Two sites ([21], [22]) present more biographical info about the artist, the first is a blog interview based on quotes from the artist, and the second is a blog post by a fashion outlet, so these are not reliable. Discounting these, the reliable ones linked above are capable of confirming perhaps just the artist's birth year, place, education, and some of the competitions they have entered. There is not enough in them, however, to confirm details about their style, specialities or any other critical review about their practice.

Next the criteria speaks to an artist's work itself otherwise needing to (3) "be the subject of independent periodical articles or reviews" or (4c) "receiving significant critical attention". These sources ([23], [24]) do speak about specific paintings by Condon, but being bio page entries, the body of the text mostly is composed of quotes from the artist themselves, they are not accompanied by actual critical review. The Australian above does give a brief statement about the portrait, "tiny but fine". No further critical review appears and the article moves on to discuss other people. Since the works are always portraits, most of the articles are spent discussing the specific famous person that appears in the portrait and the quoted comments from Condon also don't speak about the work so much as the personality of that famous person themselves (for example, Australian prime minister in the Herald Sun piece).

Finally the criteria speaks to the need for artists to have their work (4a) be a significant monument, (4b) a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or (4d) be represented in several permanent collections. This artist's work has been a finalist of many competitions, but this is not significant enough because, well, the competitions themselves are really not significant enough themselves. The ones I researched do not actually exhibit works physically. The works that are actually discussed in the sources, have been finalists in the Archibald Prize and the Bayside Acquisitive Art Prize. The Bayside prize is not covered on Wikipedia and in the year that Condon was entered, there were also 29 other finalists [25].

Archibald Prize, which is of course prominent in the arts scene in Australia, selects 40-50 finalists each year. There are suggestions that in general the work of finalists is not highly valued ([26], [27]). The finalists' works are never physically exhibited by the organisers of the prize. Looking at the years that Condon was in (2014, 2015), not many other non-winners are subjects of Wikipedia articles, and those that are, have notability for other reasons like permanent exhibition or other critical review (examples: 1, 2, 3). I found only one other notable competition entry for Condon, Salon des Refusés in 2016, which is an annual showcase of Archibald Prize rejects. This is the one of two times that Condon's work appears to have been exhibited physically in a gallery, temporarily, and there were 40 other artists also exhibited at this [28]. The other time was in 2011, a temporary exhibition “Space invaders” at the National Gallery of Australia. News/critical coverage of this exhibition was limited, with one press-like announcement ([29] and one critical discussion text [30] that fails to mention Condon’s piece.

In sum, this is generally the largest failure of the notability criteria: the lack of public/permanent exhibition of work, and the scarcity of sources that discuss the person or their works. seb26 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Main editor is an SPA. Aoziwe (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Aoziwe please clarify 'SPA', and try to avoid obscure abbreviations. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nomination. I have edited the article to clarify the awards and the Salon des Refusés. Condon's main notability appears to be two Archibald award shortlistings. I will leave it to Australian art specialists to assess the significance of this award, but the shortlists have about fifty artists which must limit the notability of being shortlisted. By contrast, recent Turner Prizes shortlists have three nominees, almost all of which have Wikipedia articles (see List of Turner Prize winners and nominees), although some of these might be vulnerable to a notability challenge. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the blocked user with the account who has the same name as the subject. When you referred to the many public exhibitions of Condon's work, that is fantastic but it is not being challenged here. The notability criteria (which is a set of rules we need to have in order to preserve the quality of encyclopedia as a whole) speaks to the need for works to be in a permanent exhibition, whether public or private is less relevant. This is not suggesting that being temporarily exhibited is not important, not relevant or not indicative of hard work. Permanent recognition means that an established institution has thrown their weight behind the work and we ought to assist readers with biographical information about that person because of the relationship that exists between their work and the established institution. This is not unlike the requirements we have for reliable sources, we don't accept sources from any blog site rather we look to established publications to tell us what the facts are. So I'm sorry to hear that you may have taken this nomination personally, but please note no one here is commenting on you, but rather just trying to maintain the standards of the articles that we present to readers. seb26 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence, in this contribution Samuelrushcondon (who is currently blocked) wrote:

I have artworks in numerous public collections including and not limited to the top art institutions in Australia: the national allergy of Australia, national library of australia, national library of Victoria, Ballarat regional gallery, etc

I have tried to follow this up, and found Honest 2010 on the National Gallery of Australia's website.[31] This appears to have been part of the Space Invaders show in 2011, but it was "Acquired with the support of Calypso Mary Efkarpidis", which I interpret as meaning that this work in now is in the permanent collection of the NGA. I failed to find anything on the the National Library of Australia's website. At the State Library of Victoria I found what appear to be books written and self-published by Condon.[32][33][34] If these are one-off or small limited editions artworks then they could count as "work in the permanent collection". At the Ballarat Regional Gallery I only found a listing of Condon as a finalist for the Rick Amor Drawing Prize 2016 (already in the article).[35]

A work in the permanent collection of the National Gallery of Australia is significant when considering notability. It is unclear whether the books in the State Library of Victoria count under this clause. I have not found work in the collections of several institutions (per WP:ARTIST clause 4d), but these are only guidelines, and we need to exercise editorial judgement. Does this allow us to keep the article? Verbcatcher (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verbcatcher, I found Honest in the NGA here. It is a zine as well as those other 3 in the State Library of Victoria. For the Ballarat Regional Gallery, I'm not sure, they do hold works in a permanent collection, [36] but no keywords for Condon came up (although the page suggests that the collection is not wholly available online yet). (But just like the other competitions I don't see it being likely that they would permanently hold finalists' work from a given year.) The NGA work is a good find and I'd cautiously support the other zines as being relevant to the criteria for permanent exhibition, but I have to admit my reservations about the way that this article could be written substantially with what appears to be such limited discussion in the sources relating to the subject themselves, aside from birthplace and his education. seb26 (talk) 12:35, 22 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) 20:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles T. Gidiney

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

Subject of the article isn't really notable except for a crank claim to have found an exact rational value for pi. But such claims have been common and don't really establish notability on their own. Even the reporting on it from the time was pretty minor. Everything else is just bootstrapping from almost exclusively 19th century primary sources. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Per nomination. Consists mostly of the sort of information you could compile on almost anyone, from census and similar records, while the main claim to fame is far too little for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Not notable and I am seeing a racial undercurrent that I find very distressing. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above; falls on the wrong side of WP:ONEEVENT. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 23 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 Polish supercentenarians. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jadwiga Szubartowicz

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

Subject fails WP:BLP1E. No evidence of any claim to notability or coverage not based more or less exclusively on the subject's age (111). If this were the oldest person in the world I'd probably consider that as notable. But every country has an oldest person and there is a rather high turnover rate to that title. Additionally it just is not that unusual anymore for people to live past 100, even well past. And lastly if being the oldest person in a given country is enough to ring the N bell then we are opening the flood gates to a potential wave of similar 1E articles. See also the discussion on the article talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there is some additional evidence of notability, independent of age, then I do not consider this article to meet WP:N. There are at least 193 countries in the world, all of which have an oldest living citizen and an oldest ever citizen (in most cases a different person), so you're already looking at around 400 articles minimum. Each time one of the first group dies there is a new person immediately becomes the oldest living - on average probably that's one per country every 1-2 years - an additional ~100 articles per year. Because life expectancy for men is lower, you can double the previous figures - now we're at about 800 articles, growing by about 200 per year. At this point we haven't even considered dual citizenships, territorial changes, people moving and people who were the oldest living at some previous point but who died before an article was created. For example, the oldest person born in what is now Poland, August Holtz, was born in the German Empire and died in the USA aged 115 in 1986. Jadwiga Szubartowicz wasn't even the oldest living Polish-born person - that is Yisrael Kristal (age 113) who is living in Israel. Being the oldest person who was born in a country and died in the same country or being, at some point, the oldest person born in a country who is still living in that country (based on various possible definitions of what constitutes the same country in many cases - there are almost no countries whose borders and political status have remained unchanged for 100-120 years) are not, to my mind at least, claims that demonstrate notability for the purposes of an international non-specialist encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of oldest people by country. Not enough here for a standalone article. The guidelines at WP:WOP say " A subject whose biography is based on only one or two reliable sources establishing notability may belong on a list, rather than in a stand-alone biography, unless these sources provide significant details beyond longevity." She doesn't have the notability of someone like the above mentioned Yisrael Kristal who as well as being the oldest man in the world is also the oldest Holocaust survivor.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The 1E rationale as to a stand-alone article is spot on. ~~Since there's an oldest people by country page and she appears there, a~~A redirect to ~~that article~~ List of Polish supercentenarians seems appropriate. David in DC (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Polish supercentenarians, per CommanderLinx below, does seem a more appropriate target for the redirect. David in DC (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Redirect. There's referenced, substantial text here, but it borders on WP:BLP1E territory. I see no need to force this to be a redlink, I'm not offended by its existence, but redirecting to the oldest people by country article is also OK. --Jayron 32 15:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the rationale above. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David in DC, Pawnkingthree & Stormy clouds The problem with a redirect is that she is not on the target list anymore. The lady has died. (Memory eternal) -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with deleting it, but I think there's still a list on that page she's still on. There are a couple of lists on the page. She's under oldest by country for Poland. She's just not on oldest living by country. These World's Oldest People pages are pretty wacky. David in DC (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the oldest ever Pole who didn't emigrate, her death doesn't affect her entry on the list. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Polish supercentenarians where she is appropriately listed per above arguments. Seems like a better redirect target. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect She's only notable for age. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Jeanne Calment. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 14:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage does not appear to be sustained or deep enough to meet the requirements of WP:N. Anything of encyclopedic value here can be mentioned on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Queen (musician)

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

Unnotable musician who has not had a significant solo or collaborative career. The article is almost entirely sourced by his website. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is a bit unfair: he's a very good musician in a very obscure niche - he plays snare drum rudiments, marching-band style, not in pop/rock bands or orchestras, and has won prizes for it, they're just not the sort of prizes that get media coverage. There are sources attesting to his greatness[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] but I don't think many, if any, count as WP:RS, which is a shame. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reluctantly. I agree with Colapeninsula. It's clear that this guy is a talented drummer in his own right but he doesn't have enough coverage yet to justify his bio. WP:TOOSOON may apply. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Laney

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously sent to deletion, and soft-deleted after three relists failed to attract any discussion whatsoever, then taken to WP:REFUND and cleaned up. While the article has sources, they do not seem to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS.

This article mentions Alan Laney, but only as the writer of a song for which the singer, not the writer, was nominated.

The singer performing on A Prairie Home Companion.

Two commercial listings for CD Baby.

A 404 from what appears to be a record label's site.

A broken link to a performance database.

References 7 and 8 do not mention him at all, and 9 is just a BMI catalog of his songs. Even I have songs listed in BMI; that doesn't make me notable.

While it's not in question that Laney has written songs for other artists, none of those songs was released as a single, nor was any song he wrote notable in its own right. His own performance credits are meager at best, and do not meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG alone - lacks independent reliable sources profiling subject. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree on the assessment of the provided sources, and I found nothing better to establish notability. If kept, could use some trimming of the promotional language. --Finngall ^talk 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wp:BASIC. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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