Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 November	3 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhuraj

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NDIRECTOR and lacks third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No working references other than IMDb and his own Twitter page, and no claim of meeting WP:ENT or WP:NDIRECTOR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Kanatonian (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GCC and Camp David Summit

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

This appears to have been written in advance of a summit between then-US President Obama and leaders from Gulf countries in 2015. Because it was written in anticipation of a future event, I think WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL applies. But since it has happened, I think that WP:NOTNEWS is more appropriate. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No incoming links so the event is clearly not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not news, and per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Coutinho and Company

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. South Nashua (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Durrani

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources. Her "official" site and the one for her show are both parked at this time, so I have removed them. PK T(alk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Was recruited here via Reddit at this link]. --KalamazooGuy (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — KalamazooGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above-noted user 'KalamazooGuy' has been blocked for disruptive editing. PK T(alk) 15:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didn't have sufficient coverage reliable sources to warrant an article and, searches returned only the sources already presenr of which some are not working entirely while some are mere websites. — Ammarpad (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, and this is a role account from wigan.gov.uk --Synnior22 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Synnior22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Amancio

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

Poorly sourced, does not meet BLP criteria. Lordtobi (✉) 15:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to admit I look forward to the article on someone who is the Chief Sanitary Officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- merely a resume of a nn individual. Wikipedia is not LinkeIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Fournier

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with mostly mentions and WP:ROUTINE game coverage (he was a captain on a junior team so he usually gets mentioned in these) and local coverage from transactions. The closest thing I found to an article of significant depth is this one from the local paper where he played with the Mooseheads about playing against his brother. It could be considered routine as a local interest story, but it is still only one article of decent coverage which is not really enough for GNG. Currently does not meet any criteria in WP:NHOCKEY with not playing long enough in a well covered league, no individual awards, and no senior level national team appearances. He is also trending downwards in AHL appearances as he signed an ECHL contract, so barring a trip overseas, he seems to be sometime from passing NHOCKEY#2 in that regard. Yosemiter (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor league hockey player, unremarkable career, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Article created by editor under community ban for creating hundreds of NN stubs to bolster his new article count. Ravenswing 01:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to War for the Planet of the Apes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lloyd-Jones

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

Lack of sources to establish general notability outside of the movie War for the Planet of the Apes, and lacking enough significant roles needed for WP:NACTOR. Article was previously a redirect to War for the Planet of the Apes, but given some other roles currently listed in the present version of the article, plus Adventures in Babysitting, I'm not sure restoring this to a redirect sounds like a good idea. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. This one doesn't need to go through AfD – boldly restoring the redirect would have been justified. As a sidenote, I created Draft:Max Lloyd-Jones a while back, intending to see if this subject is independently notable, but got side-tracked and never made a stab at it. But, for right now, restoring the redirect sounds like the correct call in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Restore redirect. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I started this as a redirect to War for the Planet of the Apes, his only significant role to date. Another editor expanded it into an article. Not yet notable enough. Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (although I prefer the first). This is because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, apart from this one article I found ([1]). But, we need more significant coverage than just that, but there is none. Additionally, it fails WP:NACTOR, as this person is not a star in multiple notable films. Thus, it should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of small roles does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Fe Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The only possibly reliable sources given in the article are dead links right now and I suspect that they would fail WP:CORPDEPTH anyways. Google search didn't give me any more promising sources. shoy (reactions) 14:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following related article is also included in this nomination: Santa Fe Relocation Services for the same reasons. shoy (reactions) 14:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the refs are fixed now bar one which was an affiliated site. Unfortunately only one of the refs is an independent source and it does not confirm much of the content. If reliable sources are found then I suggest Santa Fe Relocation Services is merged into Santa Fe Group. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional, no indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing 16:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Sulley

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

One mention in a Forbes list is about all I can find in terms of major coverage, that alone gives little indication that he passes WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 11:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sulley may at some point become a notable businessman, but "30 under 30" lists usually are more people who might be notable than ones who actually already are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn nor a directory of nn entrepreneurs. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Mujtaba

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. The article was speedy deleted several times for G11 and A7 but quickly recreated (see Kamal mujtaba). Only claim is coach to a boxer that is not particularly notable himself. This is promotional. PRehse (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for boxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe Soucy

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yet another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor league hockey player, unremarkable career in the semi-pros, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Article created by editor under community ban for creating hundreds of NN stubs to bolster his new article count. Ravenswing 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jared Spurgeon#Personal. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Spurgeon

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jared Spurgeon#Personal. He does fail NHOCKEY with no awards and not enough appearances in known well covered leagues. He gets lots of mentions in the Austrian media as a captain of his team, but they are merely mentions. I could not find any articles (possibly because searching Austrian languages sites is not my forte) that were mainly about the subject, just post-game interviews, summaries, and similar fare. However, if a couple of significant depth articles about the subject turns up, this could be switched. Yosemiter (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Stevenson

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player. I am surprised as how many such articles Dolovis created. As in, I am sometimes not quite sure how Dolovis created this many articles period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor league hockey player, unremarkable career, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Article created by editor under community ban for creating hundreds of NN stubs to bolster his new article count, and the simple reason he got away with it for so many years is that it's an order of magnitude easier to get a newbie indeffed for a half-dozen disruptive edits than it is to indef a veteran editor for a thousand disruptive edits. Ravenswing 01:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be fair, this player did meet our old notability standard by virtue of playing more than 100 AHL games. So I can't really call this article disruptive, even if it is non-notable under our current standards. Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vishva Shakti Durga Mandir

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

Lack of independent sources to establish Notability. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Was "Keep, tentatively"). Try searching on '"Mandir" Ontario', and get hits like this Hindustantimes article on prime minister Trudeau's visit. --do ncr am 17:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is not the same Mandir. It is about BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Toronto.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Redtigerxyz: Yes, when I wrote that I was aware that the Trudeau visit was to a temple in Toronto; I thought there would be similar coverage of visits to Hindu temples in the Ottawa area, and I perceived the Vishva Shakti Durga Mandir to be the general promoter of Hinduism in the greater Ottawa area. That's what the article says is its goal, promoting in "Ottawa, Eastern Ontario, and Canada" in general. I would think that the most major Hindu organization in the nation's capital, or capital area, would be notable. But I see now there is Hindu Temple of Ottawa-Carleton, which is older and has a much more significant building than does the downtown (Glebe)-located VSDM. So I strike my "Keep" vote.

However, I am still not sure on the notability of this one. What are shorter phrases / alternative names / better search terms to use than the "Vishva Shakti Durga Mandir" phrase, which is perhaps not used in full in common usage? For example, searching on "Hindu temple Ottawa" and the like might bring up more coverage. --do ncr am 23:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there ought to be Ottawa Citizen newspaper articles like those cited (but not linked, apparently not easily available online) at the end of the Hindu Temple of Ottawa-Carleton article. Can someone with access to that newspaper run some searching, and comment? --do ncr am 23:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, a better alternative to deletion is to merge content to its row in List of Hindu temples in Canada. There is room there for some description and a pic and more; it would improve the list article for it to explain the years of founding of the various Ottawa area temples. --do ncr am 00:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regrets, for a complete lack of references from reliable sources. PK T(alk) 17:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NonProf. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Yaworski

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not seeing significant coverage to meet GNG. Weak even by Dolovis standards. Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor league hockey player, unremarkable and ephemeral career, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Article created by editor under community ban for creating hundreds of NN stubs to bolster his new article count. Ravenswing 01:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Torquato

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Tarabrin

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players, which must be meant for someone only notable for playeing hockey. These guidelines are also way to low, since they allow for keeping articles with one, directory type source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with the conclusion in this case, but this is a misunderstanding of NHOCKEY (or any specialized notability guideline). A person does not need to meet the specialized guideline if they meet GNG. The specialized guideline only represents circumstances in which there is consensus that the subject is almost certain to meet GNG (or in some cases, not this one, a consensus that they should be deemed notable regardless of GNG). Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marios Joannou Elia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Concept of Polymediality

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

Article about a book, which just states that it exists while failing to demonstrate any reason why its existence would be noteworthy. This was initially started as a straight copyvio of the book's sales profile on the website of its own publisher, thus suggesting that the intent here was advertorial rather than encyclopedic, and was then restubbed to its current form. And the only source here is a single directory entry in a library system, which is a routine type of source that any book in existence could always show. A book does not automatically pass WP:NBOOK just because it's nominally verifiable as existing -- it needs to be shown as the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not just to have a directory entry in a library catalogue. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marios Joannou Elia. A case of WP:TOOSOON, but there's a clear redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

128 Records

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

Per various source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Result #1 on google. FertilityWizard (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)— FertilityWizard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Hi FertilityWizard: check out WP:LOTSOFGHITS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. Searches return nothing usable. Basically, promo spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there are two acts on the label ([2]Claude Hay & <[3]The Sleep-Ins) that have already met the notability criteria for a Wiki, it seems right that the label itself would as well. User:Peckynor (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)— Peckynor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH as nom said. References 1 and 3 (out of only 3) are not directly talking about the label. I can't find anything reliable in my little search. The SPA accounts above that want it kept have done nothing to improve the article even by single word. — Ammarpad (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southbound (Hour Glass album)

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

Article on a compilation album that has been unsourced for five years. Why is that; well simply because there is a lack of reviews and independent sources. Hence it fails WP:GNG, and, without any evidence it charted (doubtful), it also fails WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; a compilation album by a fairly-obscure band released 35 years after recording is unlikely to be notable, and there are no sources that suggest otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Bingham III

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

Advertorially toned WP:AUTOBIO (creator's username = DonraybIII), created in draftspace and then immediately moved to mainspace without an AFC review, about an entrepreneur whose notability claims are more aspirational than concrete: the article says more about what he wants to achieve than it does about any already-attained accomplishment that would pass a notability criterion. And its only "sources" are his own self-published content: the app's own website and his LinkedIn profile. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which everybody who aspires to be the next Mark Zuckerberg gets to give himself an article just because he exists: he needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, verifying that he's already accomplished something that satisfies a notability criterion, for an article to become earned — and even when those conditions have been met, he still won't get to write the article himself. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. We could lose our charity status if we allow this to continue. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Popescu (businessman)

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

Marginally notable businessman who has had brief coverage in various publications (as cited in the article, although mostly trivial), doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provided sources show only trivial coverage. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because notability is not automatically inherited from one's business. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Waugh (badminton)

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

Badminton player but with only a single losing match at national level. Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Previous PROD deleted by an IP so now as AfD. No independent refs at all and searches throw up nothing better Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where close to meeting notability guidelines for sports players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the SNG, definitely doesn't meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kōsuke Meguro

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

Non-notable Japanese voice actor, only major role was Philotas in Alexander Senki. JA Wikipedia shows a credits list. No potential to develop into any meaningful article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notable. Needs improvement, not deletion. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viken Babikian

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I notice that the nominator doesn't describe the steps he took to determine that this subject is non-notable, but I'm wondering if that included checking citation counts. I'm seeing more than a page of triple-digit-cited articles in Google Scholar (though he doesn't appear to have a GS profile). Even for clinical medicine, I think this should get him over the bar. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is a living person. There needs to be external references. Rathfelder (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you indicating that you are going to close this in lieu of a BLP PROD? EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Eric based on Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics. Citation count is sufficient in this case.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, passes WP:PROF#C1. Yet another nomination based on Rathfelder's misinterpretation of the BLP policy. – Joe (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies apply just as much to eminent doctors as to anyone else. Rathfelder (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Could you please quote the section of WP:BLP that you think supports this rash of nominations of notable people? – Joe (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability (V)

No original research (NOR) "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." The articles I have nominated have no secondary sources at all. Rathfelder (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has been demonstrated to pass WP:PROF#C1. If the sources that establish notability are not in the article yet, Rathfelder is invited to add them, as AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Red (musician)

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

Fails WP:Band No media coverage except for incidental mention in blogs, no hits, no major record contract, no notable concerts, no awards Rogermx (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failure of WP:MUSICBIO. Non-notable musician. None of his works have gained traction anywhere, outside of (as noted above) blogs. Of note; as stands, the article is a copyright violation. See Earwig's copyvio report. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parikshit Lalvani

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article looks rather promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG cuz of lack of WP:SIGCOV. The article reads more like a resume. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kallam-e-Grohirri

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

Not notable per WP:NBOOK. Just a simple book about someone with no review. Greenbörg (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unreferenced article about a book for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Shaikh

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

No in-depth coverage in multiple sources per WP:RS. The subject is not notable per WP:NWRITER and fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - google search didn't turn up anything for this individual, and the one reference provided is a dead link. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer lack of sources. My searches aren't finding him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD Choice Music

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

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing 11:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gungun Online

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

Three hits in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. Fails WP:N. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's actually only one reliable source hit with VG/RS search, IndieGamers.com. The others are mishits on forum topics by users. The current link in the article itself is a blog on a site and is unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I rejected it from article requests due to non-notability. Looks like someone created it anyway... still not notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Allah, then for history

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

Article fails both WP:BK and WP:GNG. Analysis of book's significance may be a case of WP:OR. The two sources referenced in this article are two non-RS blogs. A search of Google News, newspapers.com, and JSTOR failed to find the phrase "For Allah, then for history." A search of Google Books found the phrase invoked twice: once in a footnote in a self-published book from vanity publisher iUniverse, the second time in a one-sentence mention in a RS-published book. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPI don't think it fails WP:BK. It is mentioned in at least two books (the source just added and in the book mentioned within the article) and in an online article which are cited as sources here.Kuching7102 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has it won a major literary award like the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award? Has it been the subject of two major works such as TV documentaries or bestseller lists? Has it been adapted into a major motion picture? Is it written by an historically significant author? Is it the subject of instruction at two or more accredited universities? If your answer to all of these questions is "no" then it fails WP:BK. If not, please tell us which way it passes BK. Chetsford (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the first requirement of WP:BK, and you will note that only ONE of that list is necessary for it to meet notability. It does not have to meet more than one or all 5. The first criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. A published work can mean a book (which is one of the sources here) or a website/review etc (which is another of the four sources here). It clearly meets notabilityKuching7102 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in a footnote in a self-published book from iUniverse combined with a mention on shiaweb.org does not qualify as dedicated study by "two or more non-trivial published works". A documentary on PBS, a contemplative study published by Oxford University Press, a journal article analyzing the work in Journal of Islamic Studies - those would all pass muster. A footnote in a book from a vanity publisher and a mention on shiaweb don't. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was unable to find any RS that cover this topic. Would be happy to change this if sources are found though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteno need to expand on nominator's reasoning - it says it all. No WP:RS to establish WP:N. Sources cited are insufficient to show anything other than that a book exists. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Patar knight, and am surprised basic details such as a publication date (or estimation of it) are not available. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostemane

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

Non-notable musician. All the sourcing available is either primary sourcing or not credible reliable independent sourcing, thus failing the general guideline found in WP:N. No evidence of meeting WP:NMUSIC either. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Some coverage exists ([4], [5], [6]) but unless anyone can add to this, I don't think there's enough to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I could not find sources better than the ones cited above; perhaps WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 17:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic Moms Network

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

Any significant coverage in reliable sources? MrBill3 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with REFUND if more details emerge. I don't see any secondary coverage, and I'm not entirely sure if this is just a website/web community or something else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect, but the argument for redirecting here equally justifies deleting seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invocational media

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

Seems to be a theory invented by one author which has not gained widespread traction to the point that it would be notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Digital computer. I agree there has been no significant or widespread traction of this term, proposed by Chesher in his PhD thesis. The term has been referred to in a small number of specialized books, like this, this and this and this. However I don't quite think this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Too much of this article draws on the PhD thesis and, as such, is WP:OR. A redirect seems appropriate because, In Chesher's own words: The term 'digital computer' is no longer useful or appropriate. I will offer instead what I think is a better concept for these devices: invocational media. So that's where it should point to. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Term invented and used by a single person to refer to something that has long existed and requires no name. I cannot find any evidence that anyone in the mentioned fields has ever used this term. Clearly fails NOTE. As to the possibility of a redirect, I would oppose even that. No one who would be searching for this term are actually looking for generic articles on computers, they would be looking for the original articles which would be the #1 hits on Google. Even having the redir leads to lower quality results for the people who might look this up, although I can't imagine who that might be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chhingkhual Lanu

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

This article appears to fail WP:NFILM as it is an orphan (de facto given the only links to the article are from userspaces or the production company which is itself also listed for deletion) with not enough notable content to be a viable Wikipedia article. A Google search also provides very little information. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not verifiable; no references at all (not even IMDb) and no outbound links to people associated with the film. It's on Youtube so it's not a complete hoax, but that's all I can say for it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by DGG as WP:CSD#G5. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Maric

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

An advertorially toned BLP that lacks sources that discusses the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is mostly the show's web site and pieces by the subject. The article is cited to interviews, YouTube, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Co-hosts a nn show; does not meet WP:ENT. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep I think he passes notability easily and a lot of internal links have been made to his article.NoMoreHate (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)~~Struck due to sockpuppetry, note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Susana_Hodge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above iVote is from the article's creator. I had asked them if they had any association with the subject a while back: diff. My post was removed without a response: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subject looks like they should be notable, after I excluded social media sites, and the subject's own sites, all I could see was other sites presenting material by the subject. I could not see any IRS material about the subject. The subject does seem to be respected and prolific based on sites presenting the subject's material, but I cannot see material supporting WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. I might be convinced to change my opinion if someone can show me some IRS. Aoziwe (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mention this in the ~~Keep~~ ivote below, but I'm surprised that this was proposed for deletion. A quick Google of 'Paul Maric radio' shows a number of reputable sources that mention him (see ^[1]^[2]^[3]). Southoftheyarra (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC) — Southoftheyarra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

duplicate iVote struck. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I’ve been following him for some time and in the automotive industry he’s a highly reputable and authoritative source for automotive content. I regularly see him on television commenting on automotive topics and he is all over the radio. He was recently quoted by Channel 9 ((Australian television network) see ^[4]) and his work is constantly referenced by US publications (see ^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]) and he guest publishes on UK publications^[11]. I was surprised to see this come up as recommended for deletion given how prolific he is to automotive journalism in Australia. For the record, I have no association with this person or the article's creator, but believe they are WP:N. Southoftheyarra (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but please note it is not material a subject produces and presents either directly or via others, but material independently written about them we need. See my !vote above. Aoziwe (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above in response to your iVote that there is corresponding independent material (it's included in the references) by reputable publications that establishes this person as a notable character. In addition, the links I included above are all reputable international publications that independently quote material published by him. In my opinion, he meets the requirements of WP:N by virtue of information contained within those links and his prolific involvement in automotive journalism. Southoftheyarra (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note that I've listed both users who've !voted keep at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge. SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, I have no affiliation with the content creator or the subject of the WikiPedia entry. I joined WikiPedia with the sole intent of updating entries that mentioned the subject. Southoftheyarra (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been confirmed by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge. Southoftheyarra (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I made K.e.coffman clear now as I missed his question sandwitched in the crowded talk. No intentions of offending him but right after that the discussion took place and that's sad. Anyway, I still think he is very famous in the automotive industry and when I published this article almost 12 links were made to the article which was a very positive response. Hope you guys do the assessment keeping in view the field he is working in, Thank you! NoMoreHate (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC) struck due to sockpuppetry power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again Yes I agree the subject is prolific, and seems to have a very good reputation, but, I still see no references about the subject other than the subject's own web site which is as primary as they come. There is lot of references to material by the subject. I am happy to stand corrected if there is such material. Aoziwe (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted three links in response to your initial iVote above, they are references [1], [2] and [3] in the ref list. They are independent articles from reputable media outlets that reference the subject. Southoftheyarra (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [3] are identical and are only the briefest of mentions and state a combined experience of 30 years with other presenters. In this the subject could have only 6 months experience. These two references offer no help to the notability of the subject and certainly allow no in depth material to be written about the subject. [2] states even less about the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Like I said, it was just what I found after a brief Google search. I'll bow out of this discussion now. As I mentioned earlier, I joined WikiPedia when I came in to make edits/improvements to this entry and link to it from other WikiPedia mentions of the person — I'm not across processes and procedures for notability. Southoftheyarra (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The page creator NoMoreHate has been blocked for sock-puppetry, and I've stricken his comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll offer one last contribution to this discussion. After a closer review of WP:N, this person meets the guidelines for WP:CREATIVE, in particular "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." As cited in references [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11], these third party reputable publications cite the person and their work, thus meeting the requirements of WP:N. While the article appears to have been created by a now blocked user, it shouldn't affect the validity of the article in question. Southoftheyarra (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If for some reason this survives CSD (which is unconscionable at this point given by the block of the creator and suspicious bludgeoning above by a SPA), it should be deleted because he is not notable. Additionally, most of the sources that allege to prove his notability are just opinion pieces either written by the subject or written to include contributory one liners about cars that he happens to provide. Nihlus 02:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Linder

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

I'm not convinced he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Additionally, this article has been edited by a high number of WP:SPAs which is a concern. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the number of SPAs that edited an article is irrelevant, as it's impossible to tell how many are good SPA's and hpw many have improper intentions. That said, this article has a few decent references but they do not rise to form any kind of real notability.104.163.155.95 (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 07:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pai khel tribe

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 02:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepA 19th century RS lists two Pai khel tribes. One of them might be the one which is the subject of the article.An early 20th century RS covers a Pai khel tribe. If a tribe is verified by reliable sources it seems like an appropriate subject, just like we keep articles about verified hamlets. Edison (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such Raj-era publications are far from reliable sources on this topic, being based on a mixture of scientific racism and divide and rule. This is explained further at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable?. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. If reliable sources are found we are more confident than "might be" that they are discussing the same subject (see above), then the article can be recreated, but what we have at the moment looks like original research and a quick search for sources doesn't reveal much that would be of use in rewriting it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced article. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think tribes are like GeoLand, and are encyclopedia-worthy due to thei existence. Like any other species, e.g (no I'm not a racist or an evolutionist) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, parrot, nor a tabloid, and ethnic listings are notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Primary" tribes are inherently notable, but here we already have an article on the ethnic group: Pathans, and one on the specific tribe that the Pai Khel are a branch of: the Niazi. I don't think we can reasonably aim to have a separate article on each of the hundreds of sub-subtribes of a given ethnic group. – Uanfala 10:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, maybe. I haven't actually done any research so I'll stay neutral on the WP:N question. I do however see that Paikhel talks a little about the tribe, so if it's not kept, at least redirect to Paikhel. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I look into this more, I see we've got many similar/related articles, such as Hassanikhel, Adamkhel, and Sulaimankhel. Is there some WP:SNG which gives advice on how to establish notability for tribes? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khel is apparently a generic Pashto term for a tribe subdivision, see Khel (clan). I don't know how the notability of these is generally handled, but I don't expect there to be any specific guidelines. There were quite a few AfDs about Jat clans last year, and I don't think any were judged on anything but WP:GNG. – Uanfala 22:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait:--Shortly commenting.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they exist, they may be notable. But, the current sources do not appear verifiable. Ifnord (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They apparently are mentioned in sources, see the first !vote in this discussion. – Uanfala 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And see the response to that first vote. Sources from British Raj ethnographers are not, for very good reasons, accepted as reliable on Wikipedia. Being mentioned in unreliable sources doesn't contribute to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to discuss some of the points brought up by participants since the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noah North

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

Seemingly not-notable musician who fails WP:NMUSIC. Coverage is limited, and no longstanding impact within the industry has been established by the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having one somewhat-popular Youtube video doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC and there's nothing else here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaashi Amarnath

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM or the WP:GNG. Single source cited is a trivial, passing mention. Author appears to have a WP:COI. PROD was removed by Krish! with rationale, "yes its a film", but I don't think that's at issue. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had deleted this as soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM, but noticed afterwards the contested PROD, so I've restored it and relisted it. I'm neutral as to the outcome of the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough evidence of notability. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I considered a redirect to Peterbilt per L3X1 as an WP:ATD-R but having read the article I am not sure that's appropriate; the subject isn't owned by Peterbilt, just a "formal partner", whatever that means. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to somewhere. A Train^talk 07:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Embark Trucks

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:TOOSOON. The article subject has attracted some coverage, but none of this coverage has been beyond standard announcements and press releases. In addtion, the article subject was founded in 2016 and as such violates parts of TOOSOON. An article creator COI is also likely. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with op, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing 15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Techcrunch and the company's website? Fails WP:RS. Rhadow (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Please review additional edits made to address WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH based on recent media coverage. Thanks. Jonnyvsrobots (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gimme a break. Recent media coverage (USA Today) (2017) says, "a new self-driving truck startup that launched Friday". Waaay TOOSOON. Rhadow (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding in the words "(USA Today)" still isn't providing us with a link. Searching for an article in USA Today, I came across this article - which may or may not be the one you are referring to - but since this article relates almost exclusively on quotations and information provided by the company, it is not "intellectually independent" as it contains zero independent opinion and/or analysis, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing 21:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure which article you're referring to without a link. Company was founded in 2016 per multiple sources including Crunchbase, has significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per citations over the past year. WP:TOOSOON applies if a topic is arguably relevant but cannot yet meet notability criteria, which is not the case here. Jonnyvsrobots (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a common misconception that if coverage exists in "independent, reliable sources" then these references can be used to demonstrate notability. This is not the case. The rest of the test for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is that the article is "intellectually independent". Publication of articles derived almost entirely from company produced information (e.g. company announcements, press releases, interviews, etc) fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Similarly, listings such as those published by Crunchbase fail the criteria since anybody can create a profile and also fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pete for the time being as an ATD. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanCode Deploy

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

No claim of notability and no secondary sources provided. One of many, many, many IBM products, but not on List of IBM products. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't find any sources supporting notability claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see a few scattered passing mentions but not coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 17:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dhabu

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

WP:NOTDICT. At first sight this looks like an obvious transwiki but looking at the content and the sources, there is little that is useful for verification even in a dictionary. DrStrauss talk 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the reference links work or support any claim in the article. As a page on a surname, there would need to be at least one person listed of the name, which isn't present. [7] supports the etymology so it isn't a complete hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grace and Peace Records

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Unable to find anything that meets WP:CORPDEPTH in Search, Books, and News. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real sources (but I did like the idea of a Bizapedia) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molestin Records

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable as a record label. No indication label has had any impact on musical culture, musical genres, or the development of notable artists. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a directory of nn labels. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:44 Records

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - There are several notable artists on this label, possibly indicating notability. However, I'm having trouble finding any sources. Perhaps someone familiar with EDM can assist. Are these signed artists, or just drive-by releases? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HiPNOTT Records

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists a large number of non-notable albums, mostly red links. Not enough evidence in my view to demonstrate significant notability for the record label. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THE IBCT

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

As per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Turkey Records

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahange Arya

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. The "Keep" vote mentions a proposed notability guideline - but the key word there is "proposed". Three weeks of listing has produced no other discussion, and the article contains no sources other than WP:ROUTINE announcements and release listings. Accordingly, I'm closing this as a WP:SOFTDELETE - if the proposed guideline passes, and if the label passes GNG and MUSICLABEL(?), it can be WP:REFUNDed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barong Family

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

Has received some coverage, but a great deal of it is from non-reliable sources. Coverage in reliable sources consists of passing mentions. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, meets pt 2 of the Proposed criteria for record labels or wait until the draft gets completed and added to the guidelines 2Flows (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confession (label)

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

Has received some minimal routine coverage, such as [8], but source searches, including custom searches, are not providing enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artbeatz

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

Has received some minimal routine coverage, such as [9], but source searches are not providing enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Many available sources consist of passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Static Music

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable as a record label. No indication label has had any impact on musical culture, musical genres, or the development of notable artists. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aut Records

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine economic miracle

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

No other third party sources were found regarding a 'Philippine economic miracle' Anjelodc (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of the rare cases where we can actually cite a reliable source in favour of deletion. The Oxford Handbook of Asian Business Systems, published by the Oxford University Press well after this miracle is supposed to have happened, says, "While many of its neighbour countries have experienced an 'economic miracle' at one time or another, the Philippines has not." 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either propaganda or a cruel hoax. No such thing's happened. I was there myself for two weeks last December. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure we weren't experiencing any economic miracles in the past few years. Delete as a hoax at best. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, sure there are several reliable source stating that the Philippines experiences one of the fastest GDP growths since 2010. But none of these mention of an "economic miracle" specifically. Probaby a case of WP:TOOSOON.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music Video Sins episodes

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

Completely unsourced, overly detailed, list from a video series that doesn't even have its own article here. BangJan1999 17:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely original research and is just a list of songs. Ajf773 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable or indiscriminate, no encyclopedic purpose served by listing individual videos from this YouTube channel/series. But please do try to understand what the content is before commenting here, it's clearly not "unsourced" or "original research" as web content is plainly verifiable from the content itself (so long as it remains posted). postdlf (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment#Sub-labels. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Pictures Choice Collection

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

Non notable home video range. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 16:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment#Sub-labels. Not independently notable, but a plausible search term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Backlot Series

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

Non notable home video range. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't mentioned at Universal Pictures Home Entertainment so I can't support it as a redirect, but that would be the likely target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Universal Pictures Home Entertainment. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Cinema Classics

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

Non notable home video range. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO This is just a marketing campaign for the DVDs. We've had lists like this deleted in the past though my poor old memory can't bring one to mind at the moment - if anyone else does remember perhaps you could add a link to it here. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases springs to mind. --wooden superman 09:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal Pictures Home Entertainment, a page which has problems of its own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abedin Limpao Osop

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

Article, which appears to have been written by a child of subject ("He, my mother, and 3 elder children migrated in General Santos City ...") is sourced to a wide variety of non-RS, such as Wordpress blogs. A search of Google News, JSTOR, Google Books, and newspapers.com, fails to find any substantial mentions. Chetsford (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while writing an article on your father is not per se a violation of rules, it needs to be sourced to something better than word press blogs. While the chancelor of a university would seem to pass notability for an academic, we need reliable sources to pass GNG, which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Sindh. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of STAGS

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

We generally don't have articles on such societies. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with University of Sindh. It seems to be a relatively important organization at the university, but I don't see sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to justify a standalone article. Pburka (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Linguist^un Eins ^uno 17:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Men's Asia-Oceania Floorball Cup

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

Non-notable sports event. Completely sourced by primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is license under the IFF (International Floorball Cup) as this replaces Asia Pacific Floorball Championships which ran in 2012. Plus personally it is good to get the continental tournaments for this relatively unknown sport.

Also their other sources from this with a couple being:

[10] [11]

Is it limited in sources, yes but should be deleted no so that is why I am going to stay keep Matt294069 is coming 02:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Floorball#Competitions. Non-notable for a stand-alone article but a feasible search term and can be covered in the target article with a sentence or two. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nutz

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

Did my best BEFORE search but can't find any indication this is a notable brand in and of itself. Google, GBooks, Gnews, Highbeam, JSTOR pretty much all have nothing. There's one book on GBooks that mentions this brand but exclusively in the context of the Colbert Report, and one source isn't enough for GNG.

For full disclosure: I did revert a good-faith attempt to redirect this to Nut because I don't think that's what anyone searching for Nutz will be looking for. However, I'm not opposed to a redirect somewhere instead of deletion if that's what the consensus is. Result of previous AfD was merge & redirect to Colbert Report. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Nut (A disambiguation page) due to the common usage of adding a z to a word to make it soundz coolz manz. and because I can't think of anywhere else to point it. Dysklyver 22:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence in my view to establish significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to have enough reliable sources that discuss it in depth, thus making it fail our general notability guidelines. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pernille Broch

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

Non-notable actress with all of one credit to her name (a recurring role on EastEnders). WP:TOOSOON. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many Eastenders actors have only one notable credit to their name. The most well-known is Adam Woodyatt who has played Ian Beale since the very first episode back in 1985. Eastenders is a prime time early evening soap, aired three times a week on BBC1. Monkeez (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, Adam Woodyatt has been in the business three decades and has an extensive filmography. Broch has nothing aside from the show. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 17:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adam Woodyatt doesn't have any films to his credit, in fact he doesn't even have an IMDB entry, whereas Pernille Broch does. His other TV roles were a couple of things he did as a child actor. I surmise that he has a Wikipedia entry because of the notability of Eastenders, which in turn makes him and Pernille Broch notable actors who are seen by millions of viewers every week on BBC1. Monkeez (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't even have an IMDb entry"? What do you call this, then? Also, put your signature at the end of your comments, not before. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2017)#Ingrid Solberg as a plausible search term. At this early stage in the actor's career, it's safe to say that readers are looking up this person because of this role. I'm not seeing coverage to meet WP:GNG at this time. gongshow talk 07:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. One of the cited sources doesn't even mention her. The other one is about the character, not the actress, and anyway is nowhere near substantial enough coverage on its own. There doesn't seem to be much else either. The reasons given for keeping don't hold up. For example, actors don't inherit notability from the notability of the show where they appear, and comparing an actor who has been a star of the show for over 30 years with one who has just been in a few recent episodes isn't very meaningful. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gongshow. Agree that it's likely the character, not the actor, that draws the clicks. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one role is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gongshow. The character hasn't been on Eastenders long enough for the actor to meet WP:ENT based only on that role, and no sign of WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; additional sources exist on Google Books. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Aziz al-Badri

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

Article is sourced to two non-RS: khilafah.com, and a personal blog. A search of Google News, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any mentions. Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedyKeep - The used sources are not widely known but there is no reason provided for why "Khalifah.com" and an article by the director of the Center for Middle East Studies and Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma would not be a reliable source. Still a reason for deletion could have been that the person is not notable to wikipedia standards however a quick use of the provided google books search tool shows that this person without a doubt meets the notability standard.--Abhk1 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Withdrawing nomination. While the sources in the article still do not meet RS, as per Abhk1 subject is covered in books from mainstream publishers. I apologize, I hyphenated his name incorrectly in my initial search on Google Books. After re-checking, it appears he has received sufficient mentions to pass the GNG threshold. Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Walton (lawyer)

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

Notability-tagged for more than a year. Only ref is a listing in a state bar membership roll. Questionable claim for notability. ORPHAN. Quick search of GNews turns up nothing. Written by anon SPA whose 4th of 5 total edits was to create this article. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (no !vote at the moment); I'm actually leaning toward delete, but there's some coverage of him at [12] and [13]. I've not convinced myself it's enough, but others might feel differently. TJRC (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's not enough here to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. The main reference is the California state bar's database, and the links TJRC found aren't enough for me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. There is a WP:RS, and we do need to bear in mind WP:CSB. But there is one source, and after three weeks nobody has, it seemed, turned up anything else. Unfortunatly, as this is a BLP, we need to do better. If additional reliable sources can be found, this can be WP:REFUNDed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedar Mnagrio

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWRITER and fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator managed to miss this, as it was already cited in the article before nomination, but the subject has an entry in the Encyclopedia Sindhiana published by the Sindhi Language Authority. Or do non-Western sources not count for some reason? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of your anti-West comments. Surely, I seen that but there is nothing for him other than that. We can't have article what SLA's Sindhiana has. We generally delete or redirect single sourced article. Störm (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing anti-West about my comment, but rather pro treating reliable sources on an equal basis wherever they originate from. You said that this had no coverage in WP:RS, which is blatantly untrue, unless you treat Sindhi sources as unreliable by definition. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper lack of soruces. Fails WP:BASIC my searches using the Latin alphabet turns up nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 07:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Talib al-Tamimi

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

Article is sourced to a single Buzzfeed article which doesn't actually contain any mention of subject. A search of JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, and Google Books fails to find any mentions. Chetsford (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SOLDIER fail. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Googling his name for a BEFORE brings up less than 20 hits (including Wikipedia and clones).Icewhiz (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source does mention the subject, which you would know if you bothered to do more than a quick glance of the article. The mention is here: "His replacement, Maj. Ali Taleb, 33, is a popular and respected ICTF veteran".

If you bothered to look at the notability requirements for military personnel, found here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide

You would see individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign (in this case the Mosul Battle); or Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (commanding the Iraqi special forces evidently qualifies)

As Ali Taleb fulfills both of those requirements, again this is a case of you not doing your homework.Kuching7102 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Chetsford (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOLDIER is a well respected essay. Al-Tamimi doesn't meet any SOLDIER criteria. Doesn't have medal of honor, Major isn't close to flag rank, participating in the battle of Mosul is not an important role in a significant military event, didn't lead a division, and 6-8 are not relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't merely 'participate' in the battle of Mosul, which is a significant military event, he lead a significant bulk of the Iraqi special forces, who did the majority of fighting in that battle. His contribution to the Battle of Mosul is surpassed by few others. I think that is evidently enough to satisfy the criteria. Kuching7102 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm sold! If you can just provide some WP:RS that prove that, I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Chetsford (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added four further sources, two in English and two in Arabic, I hope you find that satisfactory.Kuching7102 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't. It appears the English sources are just one-sentence quotes from Tamimi and don't establish that "His contribution to the Battle of Mosul is surpassed by few others." The Arabic sources are to the Baghdad Post which is a 16-month old newspaper and may not be RS. Chetsford (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources do not establish that Tamimi was a key figure in the battle of Mosul. Until there are reliable sources that show such, we should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you two (or is it only one of you?) would like to tell me how someone can command a battalion of the Iraqi special forces fighting in Mosul and not be a key figure in the battle of Mosul? He was certainly there, indeed he died there. Maybe he just stood around doing nothing? Kuching7102 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I guess we'll never know in the absence of reliable sources. Chetsford (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happily there are five on the page, are we not lucky :) Which mention his role in the fighting:DKuching7102 (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, applies. Kierzek (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I don't see why the Baghdad Post wouldn't be a reliable source, but a pair of one line reports of his death doesn't give enough information about an individual to write an encyclopedic article that is not original research. Searching his name, even in Arabic, "علي طالب التميمي", gives no other results that I can find. I don't see that his rank or actions achieve the level of SOLDIER. I think there is a real chance that he might meet GNG based in sources I don't see, but a death notice usually isn't sufficient and otherwise he gets passing reference. I don't see him getting coverage, even a paragraph within a larger article, that is directly about him. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gioia Sails

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

Fails WP:ORG. It is a small company that sells to some large boat manufacturers. Only newspaper sources are about the company moving. No real notability Rogermx (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Corp; not notable for stand alone article; local business. Trivial in nature and note it was an article created by a blocked sock puppet account. Kierzek (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Amanat

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

~~Not much coverage. Only trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 22:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 22:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the business of evaluating the notability of such figures, but articles like the first three that came up on a web search [14] [15] [16] are anything but "trivial mentions". – Uanfala 23:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep prominent editor with sufficient coverage for GNG Artw (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - clearly passes GNG, as shown by Uanfala. Cjhard (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered adequately in refs. Mar4d (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Störm (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Criterion Collection UK releases

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

Not independently notable. Doesn't add anything that isn't already at List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases other than a UK release date. --wooden superman 13:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is pretty obviously WP:LISTCRUFT. Redundant to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. It could in principle be merged there, but in that case I don't see a reason why the UK should be singled out. Reyk _YO! 14:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; neutral as to a redirect to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

506 Music Limited

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

Unnotable record label. Article (created by the company's A&R who was trying to "create awareness of a new label") uses as its only reference the label's first music video released about a week ago, which mentions 506 in the lyrics; the article surrounding the video doesn't even mention the label. A search does not find any other source of the kind that would suggest notability. Article was already deleted once under speedy, and its quick recreation suggests salting is appropriate. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per nominator. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 01:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable record label. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable record label unworthy of a stand alone article on the encylopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 04 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non notable company, violates WP:NOT. The author thought this is the right place to create Official page for their new company and promote — Ammarpad (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darwaza (2002 film)

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

This article appears to fail WP:NFILM. Though it does have a listing in IMDB it is relatively thin in terms of information and, as noted in the notability guidelines, this does not confer notability in itself. A further Google search also provides very little information. Finally this article is an orphan with not enough notable content to be a viable Wikipedia article. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references other than IMDb, and Virtually nothing is known about the production of Darwaza, as the film bears no credits and no names have been publicly associated with the film suggests that it's not notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prahlad Narhar Joshi

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

Does not qualify WP:GNG. The individual was a teacher at a school and now teaches in a junior college(Indian equivalent of high school). No media coverage, no research publications, no noted work. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the individual is 93 years old, I have to wonder if they are still teaching. However, there is no indication that they are notable. In fact, I am a little skeptical that we have clear evidence they are still alive, another indication they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As best I can tell our one source on him is 18 years old. While there are lots of people still alive at age 93, most people born in 1924 are now dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply appearing in an issue of Who's Who isn't sufficient for notability. I found one mention about a Prahlad Narahar Joshi [17] which may be about the same person, but I'm not sure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Television Award 2016

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

The article has very little information and so fails to establish any form of notability. The article is both unreferenced and an orphan with an online search provides very little usable references. Finally an article with a similar subject has also been deleted via AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerala State Television Awards). Vasemmistolainen (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summa Equity

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

Notability on the edge, most references look PR. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon. The references are generally regurgitation of press releases or directory listings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Group

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

small talent agency, no substantial sources. The ed who declined the speedy suggest a merge to a group it represents, but there is no indication its their only customer and would in any case be undue publicity. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If no one finds any sources to prove notability, you can just merge it to "Kitty Films" for now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not merge because this stub is unsourced, fails WP:GNG, and not significantly covered in WP:RS. We can't just afford to add bunch of unsourced content to another article (itself of questionable notabilty) after it failed all Wikipedia guideline/policies and heading to deletion. — Ammarpad (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Blais

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet NHOCKEY and not finding adequate coverage to support GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to UIC Flames men's ice hockey. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Banister

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players, which exist too avoid including too many hockey players (although they are also way too permissive, but that is another story.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was previously deleted through PROD in February 2016, and was recreated by the same user, who appears to have a COI. GNG does not appear to be met, though this was pre-internet coverage so that offers some challenges. I found some archived newspaper coverage from his playing time with the San Diego Gulls and Fife Flyers, but just passing mentions.18abruce (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the article claims he played on Canada's Olympic hockey team, which would mean that he'd meet WP:NOLYMPICS. But that doesn't appear to be the case. He did seem to play on Canada's national team, coached by Tom_Renney#International_career, but not at the Olympics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He played just two games with the national team and there's no evidence that he played "for a World Championship," so also fails to meet #6 of WP:NHOCKEY, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given his one claim to (collegiate) fame mentioned in the article, would a redirect to UIC Flames men's ice hockey be amiss? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fieldwire

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR driven / WP:SPIP sources / launch publicity. The article includes a citations to WSJ [18], but it's in the blog area and includes only a para in a roundout of similar minor companies. Raised $6 mil in funding which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. Created by Special:Contributions/TheSpiroux with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (I spot checked the sources and agree with the rationale). Martinp (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing 14:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Well, if for now we only have sources that don't satisfy GNG, then it's prolly fair to say that GNG is not met yet and that the article should not be created until it is satisfied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Ball Tour 2017

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

Page is entirely promotional in nature. The only references are to the radio stations promoting the tour. The list of performers-by-location is WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this point the only source we are going to have is the radio stations themselves; you aren't going to see an Entercom or Cumulus station promote this at all. We have articles for previous years and the article will be improved over time for sure. Nate • (chatter) 05:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this an argument to keep? The radio stations are primary sources here that aren't independent of the topic; and the tables (which are most of the article content) are still WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per nom. This is marketing, not material for a WP article. If and when there becomes substantial independent information available about this, then an article makes sense. Information discussing this topic from sources that are not promoting it, performing it, or otherwise vested in its success. Martinp (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly WP:PROMO and event catalogue. No encyclopedic relevance. This content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Linguist^un Eins ^uno 17:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hinoki International School

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

School never was notable. Altho there is a fair amount of press about its dissolution, I'd argue that's 1E. Clearly, it wouldn't be notable if it still existed, and the discussion of its closure was a local story. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If a statewide paper/academic source isn't found, would you support moving all content to Livonia Public Schools (and ensuring it's always considered due coverage/due weight for the topic); this is important because of the rancorous and controversial closure that IMO is enough (despite being "local") to have coverage... explained here: "Hinoki stakeholders viewed the Livonia board's actions as a hostile takeover of their school, recruiting teachers and students without the Hinoki board's knowledge." - there needs to be a place on Wikipedia to discuss out of the ordinary events like this. BTW the think tank Mackinac Center wasn't too happy about this. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found coverage from another part of Michigan: http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/02/saginaw_valley_state_universit_101.html (written by Heather Jordan of MLive/The Saginaw News/The Bay City Times) WhisperToMe (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the breadth and depth of coverage and the unusual nature of the closure dispute. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there also seems to have been press coverage of its opening (see refs in article), which would seem to negate the WP:1E argument. Pburka (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New info: I found the Washington Times printed an Associated Press article about this school (which cites The Detroit News as its source): http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/14/district-revokes-japanese-immersion-school-charter/ - Does this satisfy concerns of regarding regional reporting? @John from Idegon: WhisperToMe (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Bindra

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

Lack of notability; fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent reliable sources that identify this person as being regarded as an important figure, as having been widely cited by peers or successors, or as originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique - fails WP:AUTHOR. No reliably sourced biographical coverage is available - fails WP:BIO. All the available sources are authored by this person or consists of one line mentions and quotations and are promotional - fails GNG and BLP. This article is here to promote the subject - Wikipedia is not a website for promotion - WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touraj Atabaki

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

The person is not notable or significant. Not every chaired academic with a bunch of books and publication should be on Wikipedia. The article does not provide independent and reliable references. Plus, a personal website is not a reference and is more of like self-promotion. Pirehelo (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NACADEMIC, meets the two following criteria:

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Atabaki is "Professor Emeritus, holder of the chair of the Social History of the Middle East and Central Asia at the Leiden University" [19] and has been elected as the President of the International Society for Iranian Studies (2014-2016), publisher of the renowned Iranian Studies. [20] Pahlevun (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Pirehelokan: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- most likely meets WP:AUTHOR; his three books are widely held (400 , 200 , and 200 ) libraries. Here's worldcat identities. Reviews are likely to be available. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found (and added to the article) six of his books with published reviews. That's a lot for an academic, and definitely enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. A. Davidson & Co.

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

Promotional article, created and maintained by SPA, largely sourced to the corporate website. Fails WP:CORP as there is inadequate depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Most news articles on the subject are routine news releases concerning analyst activity. Coretheapple (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. The "Corporate Culture" section is a joke! References fail the criteria for establishing notability and are either PRIMARY sources or mentions-in-passing with no in-depth information. The only noteworthy mentions are in relation to the company being fined for a data breach but these do not provide in-depth information and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing 16:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Elaban

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Sources are primary, WP:ROUTINE, or from internet databases with no criteria for inclusion. Nikki♥311 03:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, user has a history of creating this type of article for new non-notable WWE signees 86.3.174.49 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly "Bev" Beaver

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. No professional or outstanding achievements. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to confirm that she does indeed rate a passage in the book The Girl and the Game. That's one ref that would count towards GNG. And the section on her in Aboriginal Peoples and Sport in Canada is of sufficient length. The national Tom Longboat Award is a significant major award for an Indigenous Canadian athlete. We do seem to have just enough to meet criteria 1 and 2 of WP:ANYBIO, on that basis alone. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough to squeal past ANYBIO/GNG. The article desperately needs cleanup work, but that's not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed K-pop music videos in 24 hours

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

This is WP:LISTCRUFT and borders on WP:OR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative suggestion to merge with k-popVorbee (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Original research. Ajf773 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn as nominator. I have editing concerns about this recently-created page, but it clearly contains at least the basis for a valid WP:SAL. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of exercises of the Indian Air Force

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

WP:NOT violation. This is not a valid WP:SAL list as none of the individual exercises appear to have their own pages/notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exercise Red Flag is one of the exercises mentioned, is one of the famous air force exercises in the world and sees participation from multiple air-forces. Other exercises for example, Indradanush, has multiple mentions in different newspapers, articles and books ([21],[22],[23],[24]). Another exercise Garuda also has enough sources ([25],[26],[27]). A third exercise Indra between India and Russia ([28],[29],[30]). Also, official sources are preferred over newspaper articles since they tend to contain more detail like which aircraft took part but there exists sufficient press and book coverage to pass WP:GNG. Lastly, the page was created a day ago and is still being expanded and over time a page for each of these exercises will also be created. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If these are all large multi-national events, why is the list specific to the Indian Air Force? Why is listing the specific Indian planes included in each individual event encyclopedic in nature? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It only mention Indian planes because the list is from the perspective of the Indian Air Force. The participating country has also been mentioned. Is your issue here that this is based around the Indian Air Force or the issue that the events are notable? Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - A List of multi-national air force exercises would clearly meet WP:SAL. I don't see how the detailed information on the Indian airforce meets WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, but others may disagree. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not opposed to that idea. But that page is going to too extensive. This is on the same lines as Lists of Bollywood films and List of Tollywood films vs having a List of Indian Films where you try to keep it concise. If this is the real issue than we should be discussing this on the talk page of the article about a move not on the article deletion page. In your nomination for deletion you asserted that exercises were not notable (based on the fact that pages for them did not exist) which is untrue. Also, the exercises for which pages do not exist can be easily searched on google passing WP:GNG. Are you now changing the reason? Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrecks

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

Article about a non-notable (yet) band, written ~~by the band~~ for publicity purposes, according to the talk page. Being signed to a notable label is enough to escape WP:A7 speedy deletion, but still isn't a criterion for inclusion according to WP:BAND. This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to argue this. To start off, I'd like to say that I am not a member, family member, or friend of the band. I have no officiations or hidden motives to write this article for "publicity," I simply heard their music on the radio and was curious for more information and did not see a source.

To contest this argument, I'd like to refer to the rules of "Notability (music)", specificly number 11 and 1.

Criterion #1 states "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This band, the wrecks, has been published in many credible sources, which are listed in the references. I can also add more if needed as I did not include them all. Recently, the band got a featured article in the magazine "Alternative Press," a well known source in the alternative/indie music industry.

As for #11, it states "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." The wrecks were on Sirius XMs "alt Nation" channel, which is a national channel, for several weeks in a row competing in their "alt-18" countdown for the number one spot. Their song "favorite liar" is still regularly played on the station.

I'd also like to mention that they also wrote and performed a song for a "Optimum TV" commercial, which you can find here https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wTDs/optimum-ludicrous-speed-song-by-the-wrecks

I believe these are plenty of reasons why this page should stay up. If you need more information, or would recommend adding anything to the page, Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico Di (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Nico Di (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I encourage editors to glance at Talk:The Wrecks in which the author liberally uses the term "we" which strongly indicates an organizational COI.

Let's dispense with #11. This is actually a good point, although a "channel" on XM isn't the same as a "major radio network". XM has tons of channels. But it's worth debating. I'd say this is borderline, but I'd like input from other editors.

For criterion #1, let's look at the sources as they stand now on 11 October:

anothercentury.com - it's the record label, not independent of the subject
another anothercentury.com page, not independent
an interview, not independent
livenation.com page with no content, no coverage at all, it's just a program listing
Instagram, self-published, not considered reliable for the purpose of establishing notability
Instagram, see above
another interview, not independent
brief coverage of All Time Low, another band, giving The Wrecks a trivial mention, which doesn't count toward notability
Facebook page, not a valid source for establishing notability
another anothercentury.com page, see 1 and 2 above
interview with highvoltage.com - interviews are primary sources, not independent, and don't matter for notability
a livenation.com page about All Time Low, with zero coverage whatsoever about The Wrecks
yet another anothercentury.com site promoting their band, not independent
94.9 page that's just a schedule listing, not significant coverage
94.9 meet and greet page, just a picture, no significant coverage whatsoever

So, what do we have...? Exactly zero sources in that entire list that demonstrate notability, failing WP:BAND criterion #1. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I originally said "we" because my friend and I wrote the article together. (If you go back into the article history you should be able to see us both working on it) Neither of us are affiliated to the band in any way. Sorry for the confusion on that. I would also like to hear others opinions on the XM subject, as I'm looking into it now and believe it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.143.15 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ By the way, that claim about being on regular rotation on that XM radio station will require a citation to a reliable independent source, not just the word of a Wikipedia editor. I don't see this cited in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does the signing it with the four ~ mean? And I will find a source for the regular rotation and add it, thank you for the info.

Four tildes will be converted to a signature with a time stamp. If you are logged in, your signature will include your user name. If you aren't logged in, it will be your IP address. It helps editors keep track of who is saying what. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bassgirl27. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Train2104: That's a malformed SPI report. How is that relevant to this discussion? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, as detailed by Anachronist, and I couldn't find further in-depth coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: If it can be shown that the band gets airplay on an XM satellite radio station, what's your view of how that would meet WP:BAND criterion #11? A radio station isn't the same as a "radio network" although in this case the station is available nationwide. It's somewhat ambiguous. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've got a question. Would it help if I added more sources, now that I know more what counts as reliable and unreliable? I've looked into other bands of the same caliber's wiki pages and see some sources which also have articles about the wrecks. 64.69.143.15 (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would help. Why not list them here so we can look them over? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands currently, references are not reliable or independent enough. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: Well, there's the XM Radio Alt Nation channel on XM Radio that has this "Alt 18 Countdown" show, in which the band has reached a position in this "top 18" list over a number of months (see this list). The question is whether that meets WP:BAND criterion #11. I'm on the fence, leaning to "no" because I don't see that as a notable radio program, but I'm willing to withdraw this AFD nomination if consensus says otherwise. After all, we don't judge notability based sources as they stand in the article, but by sources available. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if that is a legitimate radio station, then that would help, but its going to need more RS than it has as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help! I'll gather as many sources as I can tomorrow and post them here for you to go over. 2601:152:4201:6BF0:8C83:E295:24BC:5DC (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a list of radio stations I could find they were played on: KTCL Denver 103.3 Buffelo KHTB Salt Lake City 102.1 milwaukee MMR philly 103.3 Kentucky 98.5 South Carolina 106.7 KROQ LA KRZQ Reno NV 104.5 Philly X105.1 Kansas city 96X Virginia LIVE san fransisco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4201:6BF0:AD51:28D4:5C00:776B (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are two Alt press sources: http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/the_wrecks_fall_2017_tour http://www.altpress.com/features/entry/the_wrecks_favorite_liar_video_premiere ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4201:6BF0:AD51:28D4:5C00:776B (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess radio station arguments and whether altpress is a sufficient source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being merely "played on" a radio station isn't sufficient. They need to be in regular rotation, and on a major radio network, not a small local or college station. Lots of stations (especially college stations) play one-off things. And those Alt press sources aren't suitable; one's just a directory listing, and the other is an interview. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were (and I believe still are, but I'd need to confirm) on regular rotation on AltNation. Has there been a decision on if that station is valid to use? It is a national station so I'm confused as to why it wouldn't be. Also, I don't think any of those were college stations 64.69.143.15 (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of Wine Spectator; they review 10,000 wines per year, so the chance of any particular wine getting a review eventually is pretty high, but being reviewed in that publication doesn't make a wine notable. In that sense I'm not entirely convinced that being played on an XM radio station meets WP:MUSICBIO #11; it depends on the station. Alt Nation exists for the sole purpose of giving airplay to alternative musical acts. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. still waiting for more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence found from reliable sources to indicate significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait but no one has commented for further opinions after the most resent relist 64.69.143.15 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would've voted keep if the article had visibly been improved especially about RS since the start of this discussion but nothing has been done. Being declined as CSD because of signing major label doesn't mean the band is automatically notable it only mean CSD doesn't apply. In addition, the sources are largely unreliable or primary; Instagram (self) 2 times, Facebook (self) 1 time, signing label website 4 times. There is no WP:SIGCOV of this record in reliable sources generally. — Ammarpad (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was supposed to wait for the discussion to be over to edit the page, could I have a day or two to edit and then see where we are? 64.69.143.15 (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't frozen while this discussion continues. You may continue to edit it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Malacca Botanical Garden. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melaka Forestry Museum

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

fails WP:ORG. museums are not inherently notable. zero gnews coverage for its English and Malay names. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not find anything online to support keeping this article. Bill Pollard (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources of depth or substance - fails GNG Burley22 (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malacca Botanical Garden, the location the museum is located at. Redirects are cheap and this one is plausible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jikyo ryu

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

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although Jikyō-ryu may not be well-known, it is still taught in Japan today and information is available on its history. It is a separate style from the Mugai-ryu page on which it was first described on Wikipedia and I think it makes sense to give it its own page to describe its history in more detail. It is confusing to simply embed it within the page of another style when it's a totally different style. I practice both styles and trying to figure out what's what or where they come from using my somewhat limited Japanese skills has been challenging. I don't know if we want to call the article a stub or whatever, but I do think it should be it's own article. Anyway that's my 2C. Kazrian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources and my own search didn't turn find the significant coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. Merely existing is insufficient to meet WP's notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa - The sources are in Japanese, there doesn't seem to be much in English. Kazrian (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they show significant and independent coverage, it would help to list them. If they're not both of those things, then I see no reason for the article to remain. Papaursa (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise Whitsundays

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

Promotional content for a non-notable company posing as an article. Created by currently inactive user whose history consists mainly of this and similar edits. No third-party sources and fails WP:CORP. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTPROMO and company has no evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on evidence so far. The closest things to a source I could find in the first 200 ghits are this Daily Mail promo and this takeover press release. The takeover notice makes it seem like they are a significant tour operator in the region, but there's virtually nothing else out there about them outside local papers. There are some awards, only one of which is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, and which might be notable but I'm gonna leave this to someone who knows more about Australia. Daß Wölf 02:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources report about this company either no WP:CORPDEPTH and the promo tone is obvious — Ammarpad (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cookie cutter spam article. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Plastick

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Corp and is local trivia; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable content, just a blathering quote and a bunch of random lists. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing 14:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the improvements to the article do not bring it above the notability threshold. ansh 666 20:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jase Harley

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

Non-notable musician. The sources in the article don't establish notability and nothing additional could be found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON; I'm unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. gongshow talk 06:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've updated sources and added a short list of notable collaborations without being lengthy. Smartdata3 08:551, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep After the work by Smartdata, the article clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Smartdata is the article creator, but even so they have been unable to add much in the way of decent sources. First source is from a paid publicity site; second source doesn't mention the subject at all; third source appears to be a collection of music lovers writing about music, and who say on their home page that they will write about any artist who contacts them (hardly a model of impartiality); fourth source is simply a list of artists who use a particular piece of technology, Harley does not actually record for ROLI; fifth source is from a blog and doesn't actually state that Harley has made music for Ford; final source the editorial oversight is unclear. So with one dubious source and five clearly unreliable sources, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and I can't find better sources. Richard3120 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All sites listed are absolutely credible and reliable sources. Harley has clearly collaborated with ROLI and additional credible sources have been listed, including ROLI's portfolio of collaborations, featuring Harley next to other prominent artists. The article passes Smartdata3 00:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 02:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Smartdata above, the sites might be credible, but they're not independent and substantial. Harley being featured "next to other prominent artists" is WP:INHERITED and not an indication of notability. The two references to ROLI are WP:PRIMARY, coming from the artist's and company's own websites – nobody independent has written about them. Furthermore, Harley's thanks to various companies for providing the furniture and decorations for the videos suggest that they were conceived purely as promotional videos for the company. Richard3120 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Not enough evidence found from independent reliable sources to indicate significant notability as yet. That might change in the future. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A failure of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar Sultan

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

There is more coverage for Shan Foods than its founder. Notability is not inherited. All written here is per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect to Shan Foods. Störm (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep According to this source, he is "considered the guru of Pakistan's packaged food industry". He appears to be notable as CEO of a large brand [31] [32] [33] Mar4d (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they all are name-check mentions. Ideally this should be redirected. Störm (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Naturally people tend to mention products more often than the founder's name and the entrepreneur who made those products possible. He had enough news coverage in 2 major newspapers of Pakistan and one major newspaper in India as his developed products are sold in both countries and in the international markets. He has won awards for his vision and leadership and I have cited references for all of this in the article that I edited on 15 October 2017. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chicken and egg debate? What came first, Sikandar Sultan or products developed by him? His notability in Pakistan is certainly not inherited. Recognising this, Karachi Chamber of Commerce & Industry awarded him Best Export Performance Award in 2009. References are already provided in the article. It's a Wiki stub article. With more references shown above by User:Mar4d and others, the article can be expanded in the future. Ngrewal1 (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ngrewal. NotInherited is NotPolicy, also. I will remove a lot of promo-y sounding text. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anybody wants to re-create this as a redirect, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niccolo Milanese

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

Speedy renomination after the last AfD where the only participant other than the nominator was ~~the article creator~~ an SPA. I agree with the previous nominators assessment: there aren't enough articles written about the subject to meet the GNG or ANYBIO. I'll add on top of that an additional reason for deletion: this is written as an advertisement, which means it is excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination at the last AfD. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to European Alternatives. Sources in the article are actually articles about European Alternatives, and to the extent that he has been interviewed, the interviews were about European Alternatives, not about him. may well merely be WP:TOOSOON; he fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? Is there anything that could be merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Κeep. A state-run Greek agency with activities that receive wide coverage from the mainstream Greek media. HRADF's activity has been regularly and well documented in IMF's reports on Greece, and Greek economy, e.g. [34], [35].——Chalk19 (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only way that the nominator could have failed to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources would be by not looking. The spoon-fed Google Books, Scholar and News searches linked above find hundreds of such sources. The idea of having those links in every deletion discussion is that people should follow them, not ignore them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article itself cites several reliable sources to meet the notability guidelines, and also my searchers here and here show a quite good number of sources to establish the subject's notability. Passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to French Montana. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coke Boys Records

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — Fails notability standards as its own article, but is a valid search item. STATic message me! 19:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, most likely to the currently owning record company/label. Perhaps, within editorial discretion, insert appropriate mentions in articles of the artists and labels involved. But there seems to be insufficient to go by for an independent WP article. Martinp (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says two companies/lables own the brand. Which one gets the redirect? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not an area I'm very familiar with, so don't have a definitive answer. My ingoing hypothesis was "to whichever one where this (sub?)brand would be meaningful enough to potentially be worth mentioning, and perhaps even reusing some of the content here in a section there". I just looked at both and didn't see an obvious answer. However, it appears (taking everything I read in the articles at face value) that it's more meaningful as an activity of French Montana, is mentioned in his article, and he is the one who signed some agreement with the 2 companies. So failing any better idea, I would redirect to French Montana. Martinp (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://radiotoday.com.au/mrn-in-gear-with-caradvice/

[2] ttps://mumbrella.com.au/caradvice-video-news-bulletin-podcast-366883

[3] ttp://www.bandt.com.au/media/macquarie-media-launches-radio-show-partnership-caradvice-com

[4] ttps://finance.nine.com.au/2017/08/25/12/47/test-driving-the-new-holden-commodore-zb

[5] ttps://www.carthrottle.com/post/expect-the-incoming-bmw-z4-to-be-completely-different-to-the-supra/

[6] ttps://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-australia-boss-swears-2019-z4-and-toyota-supra-will-drive-differently-120793.html

[7] ttp://www.motorauthority.com/news/1113025_new-toyota-supra-and-bmw-z4-to-offer-unique-driving-characteristics

[8] ttp://www.motorauthority.com/news/1110935_potential-2019-ford-ranger-raptor-spied

[9] ttp://www.carscoops.com/2017/10/can-kia-stinger-take-on-all-aussie.html

[10] ttps://www.autoevolution.com/news/kia-stinger-demolishes-holden-commodore-ss-v-chevrolet-ss-in-1-4-mile-race-120960.html

[11] ttp://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tesla/model-3/100317/new-tesla-model-3-review

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]