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

The result was Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth as A7, G11. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equidate[edit]

Equidate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable, and promotional . This is a Press release, based on press releases and notices. Amazingly, even the NYT article is essentially an advertisement for them. There is apparently no source about business that is always reliable for purposes of notability, making the GNG useless in that area. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional cruft on an non notable private business. Created by a SPA: Special:Contributions/Achilles700. I've requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Labour Party[edit]

Telangana Labour Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Per the Electoral Commission of India, there are over 1800 registered unrecognised political parties in India ([1], page 15 for the start of the list); merely existing as one is not sufficient to show notability. I have checked GBooks, GNews, the archives of The Hindu and the Times of India, and the website of the Electoral Commission of Andhra Pradesh ([2]) and have found zero indication that this registered but unrecognised party is any more notable than any of the other 1800 of its kind. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Fails WP:NORG. FITINDIA 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG and consists of one sentence (?). I think we should expect better from encyclopedia articles :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NORG, GNG Chetsford (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This fails the WP:SECONDARY or even WP:OR threshold. More: WP:ORGIND. Ventric (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, NFP? It's not a film... ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I accidentally entered a flag when I was editing two articles at once. Appreciation for catching my error. Ventric (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problem. I figured you might have had two tabs open at once or something. Cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Politics of Andhra Pradesh. Dictionary definition of a marginal party. gidonb (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. It's clear that WP:NSPORT is met. There are open discussions about the relation between that SNG and WP:GNG at WT:Notability and WT:Notability (sports). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Gallagher[edit]

Doug Gallagher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 22:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a straight-up WP:NBASE pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and a ((trout)) to the nominator, who should refresh themselves with the relevant notability standard before making further nominations of baseball players. Sorry, but given this, it has to be said, as (as mentioned) WP:NBASE is immediately verified as passed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as User:Rms125a@hotmail.com did not familiarize him/herself with WP:ATHLETE before the nomination. WP:NBASE specifically includes anyone who appeared in MLB, and Gallagher played 9 MLB games in 1962. We presume there are offline sources for these subjects. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable MLB player. Nominator doesnt even attempt to explain why he considers him to not be notable. Spanneraol (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG is the controlling standard, overrides notability guidelines for athletes, and is in no way met. It is very disruptive to the health of the project for sports enthusiasts to act like sportspeople should have some special protection, so much so that people should be repimanded for bringing such a sub-standard article to AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He should be reprimanded for bringing the article to AFD with such a weak rationale. As to the standard of the article, I have already improved it greatly with just a few moments of research. I'm sure there is more out there if someone has the time to spend on it. Spanneraol (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why suddenly the consensus standard that a person who has participated in a regular-season major league sports competition is notable is "disruptive to the health of the project"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. It took maybe 30 seconds to find strong sourcing, and there's plenty more out there. That's why NC-BASE is a thing, to prevent stupid nominations like this when researching it and expanding the article takes no time at all. Wizardman 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sportsman and usually avoid athlete articles for that reason but, ummmm, the "article", created on 20 September 2010, when I made the AFD consisted of "was a pitcher who played in nine games for the Detroit Tigers in 1962. That does not constitute notability, under any circumstances. Any article so sloppily and idiotically created, and left in that condition for seven years deserves to be not only deleted but atomized into extinction. Quis separabit? 18:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even a good argument. See for example WP:TOOLITTLE. "Being "short" is not grounds for deletion." It would be preferable to tag it for expansion. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and probably Speedy per all the above. I've noticed this nom before in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Kluge recklessly nominating articles for AfD with zero regard to WP:BEFORE not to mention our topic-specific notability guidelines like WP:NBASE or WP:NACTOR. This is really becoming a form of WP:DISRUPT. --Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over The Top Wrestling[edit]

Over The Top Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG Galatz^Talk 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 14:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the promotion in question has had articles by PWI Insider 1, PWI insider 2, Figure 4 Online, National Newspaper Irish Mirror. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both PWI Insider "articles" were written by Matthew Macklin, who according to his Twitter, is associated with Over The Top Wrestling. The Figure 4 Online "article" is fan-submitted WP:ROUTINE match results. None of those sources count towards notability. Nikki♥311 23:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A national newspaper doesn't count toward notability? I'm a little bit surprised that could ever be said. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I stated that the PWI and Figure 4 sources don't count toward notability and provided rationale. I never said the Irish Mirror didn't, or I would have provided rationale for that as well. Nikki♥311 14:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Tone seems good and fact based, and sources seem notable. Schracq (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See SPI.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I have struck out his comments as it has been confirmed and he has been blocked see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive#26 December 2017 - Galatz^Talk 14:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not confirm what is written in the article, in particular, the Irish Mirror only mentions OTTW, but says nothing about talent coming in "worldwide", yet that is the claim in the article. The article itself is written as an advertisement. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable business and the sources are minor. A business, happens every day. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, it's fair to question whether you do any research whatsoever on any of these business articles, or if you instead simply repeat variations of the same meaningless rationale. I suspect the latter option is correct. Lepricavark (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Hey you, yeah you! seems to have been permanently blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - their conduct at AFDs was the primary concern thus I've taken the liberty of striking their !vote from the discussion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless of what is said in the article, the point of an AfD is if the article meets WP:GNG. If it does, and a section isn't referenced properly, then use a ^{[citation needed]} tag. There are quite a few articles in the Irish mirror Irish Mirror 2, Joe.com, Irish Mirror 3, Irish Mirror 4, Irish Mirror 4, Irish Mirror 5, Irish Mirror 6,Belfast Live, Irish Mirror 7, UK Mirror, Irish Times Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the criteria is not weather or not the sources are present in the article, but if there is significant third-party coverage in reliable sources, I'd say that the Irish Mirror and Belfast Live sources cited above meets the criteria.  MPJ-DK  22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I think this passes GNG by the skin of its teeth. I'm also apprehensive that this will grow out of control like other articles on tiny promotions from the British Isles (i.e. Progress Wrestling and Defiant Wrestling).LM2000 (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - For coverage in multiple Irish Mirror articles, the Belfast Live article, and Irish Times article. Nikki♥311 23:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a nn wrestling promotion; sources in the article are passing mentions and mostly not about the company. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take a look at any of the links above. They are national newspapers with articles specifically about the company. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Irish Mirror and Belfast Live sources cited meets the criteria for notability. Jefstevens (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At the very least meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Covey[edit]

Craig Covey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a small-town mayor, without enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. His main claim to being more notable than the norm is that he was the first openly gay mayor in the state -- but that's not entirely accurate, as he was merely the first to win a general election of the voting public rather than getting selected as mayor by an internal vote of the city council. And even if we corrected the claim, being the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not actually a notability pass that would automatically make him more notable than his predecessors or successors -- it might make a difference if he could be shown to have garnered nationalized coverage for it, but that's not what's being shown here: there are just four sources, of which two are routine election results announcements in the local community newspaper, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about Dustin Lance Black, and one is a source I can't even find at all to verify whether it says enough about Covey to count toward GNG or not. This is simply not enough to make a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and just being gay isn't enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this either. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A person being the first elected gay mayor is just as notable than being the first selected. Additionally, Craig Covey now sits on the Oakland County, Michigan Board of Commissioners. Oakland, per its article, has 1,000,000+ residents. Most counties with over 1,000,000 have county board members whose sole political office (outside of small town stuff) is the county board. An example of this can be seen with Cook County Board of Commissioners.

Except that (a) regardless of whether a mayor was elected or selected, being gay is not an automatic notability boost over and above any other mayor of the same small town in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to pass WP:NPOL #2 ("local political figures who have received significant press coverage"), and (b) county commissioners don't get a free notability pass in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about them to pass NPOL #2 either. In a nutshell, neither of those things is an automatic notability pass in the absence of much more reliable sourcing about him than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep- First gay mayor elected in the state helps make the argument. The technicality about not actually being first is a valid point, but its easier to appoint someone than for someone to actually win an election. Not that being gay is a valid reason to vote for someone, nor is it a valid reason not to vote for someone. He did receive some national press, here's a USA Today article about his campaign to regain the position of mayor. [3]--Rusf10 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We require evidence of sustained national coverage, not just one piece of one-time coverage — before we can deem him notable. And anyway, that's not an original piece of content being written by USA Today itself, but merely a reprint of a piece written by a journalist for the Detroit Free Press — so it's not real nationalized coverage, but just reaggregated local coverage. There's a Canadian smalltown mayor, for example, who received a tiny blip of nationalized coverage earlier this year solely on the "news of the weird" criterion that his sole challenger in his reelection bid had exactly the same name as he did, forcing them both to add their addresses to the ballot to ensure that the townsfolk actually knew which one they were voting for — but that's not automatically a "more notable than the norm" criterion just because a couple of nationalized sources could be shown to support it, because it didn't sustain beyond that one isolated blip. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete I am a resident of a north of Detroit suburb, keep up fairly well on news in the metro-area, and have to say I have never even heard of Covey. Note that the sources are not even the Detroit Freepress and Detroit News, but local papers to Ferndale, even though Ferndale borders Detroit. Being the mayor of a city, especially one as insignificantly small as Ferndale, and being a member of the Oakland County Commission are both not at all signs of notability. No county commissionership in Michigan is a notability sign, especially considering that Oakland County has over 20 comissioners. The sources do not show widespread, indepdent, non-routine coverage, and it is high time we stopped this incessant rush to more and more first openly x categories. I am also a little skeptical about some first openly x categories. For one think, I have seen to many places that have said Bishop Robinson was the first openly homosexual Episcopal Bishop. This is false. The Episcopal Diocese of Utah had an openly homosexual bishop back in the 1990s. With neither the News nor Freeepress being sources here, I have a sense the claim has not been vetted well. Also, being the first x-type mayor in a state is not a clear sign of notability. I am 95% positive we do not have an article on the first African-American mayor in Utah, although we do on the first female African-American mayor in Utah, but only because she is now a member of congress. That is the way politician articles work. We do not create articles on cities with about 20,000 people unless we have a really good collection of sources. 2 extremely local articles and a report on a speech at a college, a college that is local to the paper giving the report, do not add up to the level of sourcing needed to justify an article on a mayor of a place with well under 25,000 people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's [4] a search of the Detroit Free Press, showing coverage of Covey's positions of medical marijuana legalizaiton, gay issues, other policy issues and campaigns, albeit no dedicated profile.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I am 95% positive we do not have an article on the first African-American mayor in Utah..." — That is an OTHERSTUFF argument. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since Ferndale borders Detroit on the north, we would need sustained, multiple articles for the local dailies, not just one time write ups. A person like James Fouts is notable, but he is mayor of a city with well over 100,000 people, that is also a much bigger economic powerhouse than Ferndale, and due to his audacity in charging the croonyism of King Hackle and his goons, has faced a smear campaign involving engineered false records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:HEY I added a few sources, but saw plenty more WP:SIGCOV. After becoming Mayor he was an elected County Commissioner. There is coverage of issues addressed in his mayoral administration; environmental measures in particular. Pre-elected office, he was a pretty major gay rights activist in the area, working for a gay civil rights org. and founding Detroit's gay pride parade Motor City Pride; also founded an annual blues festival that gets coverage every year - including mentions of his role in it. Plenty of WP:INDEPTH to support notability and support a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - First elected gay mayor in the state (and that fact's associated coverage) is enough for a GNG pass, even if the elected post by itself is not. Carrite (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of coverage in major Detroit newspapers. Small town major without big achievements. Lack of significant independent/in-depth coverage.desmay (talk)

• Er.... The Detroit News is one of the two major dailies in Detroit. And there is SIGCOV in other papers, such as Boston Globe.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes the GNG. I don't understand what all of the discussion is regarding the larger regional newspapers. Is there a notability guideline that I'm not aware and that no one has yet linked to that states that small city politicians have a higher bar than the GNG and need coverage from the larger circulation regional newspapers? -- irn (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being "the first openly-gay mayor of any municipality in the state of Michigan" is a big deal.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because there is not coverage in Detroit newspapers doesn't mean that this is not notable. Jefstevens (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There was, in fact, coverage in the Detroit papers. User:Desmay got his facts wrong, failing, for example, to notice that a Detroit News article "Ferndale elects first gay mayor" was already on the page. sigh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At the very least, meets the WP:GNG. Thank you, User:E.M.Gregory, for improving the referencing! gidonb (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Panchal[edit]

Rajendra Panchal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources doesn't establish notability of subject. ─ 1997kB 09:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rewrite the article with national/international coverage than regional @SourabhDev, can keep after rewriting. Genome$100 (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Admirable man in his field. Yet, in terms of sourcing, article lacks the degree of coverage needed. Article needs more sourcing.desmay (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Working WP:VERIFY. The references from META Awards, are held by Mahindra_Group, a private conglomerate holdings group; far from a satisfactory WP:SOURCE. He holds only a passing mention as part of a list in the Indian Express articled cited. The Rajasthan Post article was simply an announcement. This does not meet the WP:ENT threshold. Additionally, Jaipure Explore is not a WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps this subject could be part of another article. Ventric (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PrettyLitter[edit]

PrettyLitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a procedural nomination. The article was created by a UPE sock but can't be speedy deleted per G5. I'd like the community to evaluate if the article is sufficiently notable to keep. Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of the references from luckypuppymag.com appears to meet the criteria for establishing notabilty but I cannot find a second. The other references fail for a variety of reasons but mostly because they rely on company-produced material WP:ORGIND. If a second reference is found, I'm happy to change my !vote. For now, topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure if the article is primarily about the company or the product, but I don't see evidence either is notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Telugu cinema. Sandstein 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Srujan Pelluri[edit]

Sai Srujan Pelluri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. Article subject has appeared in some roles, but has not established the significant impact on the industry required by WP:NACTOR criteria. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 16:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with article on Telugu cinema. Beyond the first sentence, this article on this actor reads more like a list than an article. Vorbee (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Vorbee SeraphWiki (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congolese unification[edit]

Congolese unification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no reliable source coverage of this proposal. This is a discussion that seems to have so far only appeared on Reddit and this article was clearly created by someone who knows very little about the political affairs of either country and probably just assumed that having a similar name is all that counts for anything. Most of the Google books search returns for "Congolese unification" are about the struggle of the DRC to unify itself. Indy beetle (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia should not be a soapbox or PR website. There is zero reliable source coverage of this proposal.desmay (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This maybe was a borderline proposal back in the 1960s per my BEFORE - and even that is barely covered. BALL, lack of GNG, NOR, and lack of sources are all issues with this article.Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, in the late 1950s up through 1960 there was a movement among the Kongo people for the restoration of the Kongo kingdom. This basically involved the secession of the western portions of the RoC, DRC, and Angola (in the DRC it was viewed as a separatist movement). This however has nothing to do with this article's proposal of the unification of the entirety of the RoC and DRC. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without refs, this is an OR situation. South Nashua (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence that anyone has ever actually tried to push for this, let alone in a way that makes it worth writting on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I search everywhere in both English and French. Couldn't find a single mention of this project/idea/anything. Karl.i.biased (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreferenced, and search results are largely wishful thinking, alt-history fodder, or references to the State of Katanga. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UNC Charlotte Fight Song[edit]

UNC Charlotte Fight Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing to say this a notable song. Mattg82 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a notable fight song such as Notre Dame's fight song. It does not have significant independent coverage from reliable sources. desmay (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to not keep this, but split opinion about a merge vs. straight deletion. The arguments to delete seem stronger to me, so I'm going with that. If anybody really wants to mine the existing text for information to merge someplace, ping me and I'll be happy to userfy the article for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad[edit]

List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY as this is a list with no context whatsoever, only positions, ranks, and names. This does not add anything at all to our articles about Stalingrad, unlike an OOB, because all notable commanders and major staff officers, etc. (officers not in command positions who played notable roles) will be covered in the main battle article or the articles on the sub-operations of the article. To address the keep votes of the first AfD nomination: I would like to note that WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here as if we list all the known senior staff officers of the Axis and Soviet commands (since Stalingrad is a large battle involving thousands of staff officers on both sides), we would end up with a long list of potentially non-notable staff officers. Kges1901 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- to quote the nom in the first AfD: "The information [is] already contained in Battle of Stalingrad and the associated Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad and Red Army order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad." Basically, a redundant list with no clear purpose or context. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to agree with your reasoning, however some figures - e.g. Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen, Vasili Zaitsev (whom was there but wouldn't be expected to be in the order of battle), Erhard Milch (who actually I do not understand why he belongs), or Filipp Golikov are not on the respective order of battle. In principle a list of notable officers who played a part in a campaign (also lower ranked ones) could meet inclusion notability.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Zaytsev and Richthofen are mentioned in the main battle article. I'm not sure what Milch's role in the battle was, while Golikov should be mentioned in the main article but he isn't due to content omission as the main article is based on obsolete sources and doesn't include enough from Glantz's Stalingrad Triology. Kges1901 (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I don't see what the page accomplishes that the infobox on the page about the battle doesn't.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I don't know, but this seems like a page that should be merged into Soviet order of battle for the Battle of Stalingrad and Axis order of battle for the Battle of Stalingrad. Staff officers of army, corps, and even division commanders can be listed at an order of battle, right (this was an issue brought up at the last discussion)? I'm not sure what to do with the page history, perhaps rather than deleting, redirecting to the main battle page if preservation is preferred. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant content to Soviet order of battle for the Battle of Stalingrad and Axis order of battle for the Battle of Stalingrad and the history of the article should be preserved for helping further expansion on other articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- there's no relevant content to merge, as the article only lists the names and does not include any sources. BTW, the Axis OOB article is at Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant and inferior to the existing order of battle articles. Sandstein 19:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Jantzen[edit]

Corey Jantzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or that he meets the notability standards for actors or athletes. Routine sports reporting, local coverage, and/or school reports don't meet the requirements. Simply qualifying for the NCAA tournament doesn't make someone notable. Appearing in a file nominated for an Academy award does guarantee notability, especially with a role as "Foxcatcher Wrestler #4". Fails to meet both WP:NSPORT and WP:NACTOR. Sandals1 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor and sportsperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Does not meet notability standards for actors or athletes. Lacks an outstanding career.desmay (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unverifiable, possibly a hoax. Sandstein 19:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Pharmaceutical Union[edit]

European Pharmaceutical Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's unreferenced, and google knows nothing about this organisation. I think it may actually be the same as Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union and if so should be merged with it Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't match the structure, vision and mission or basic facts of the PGEU. I'm at a loss as to where the fairly detailed information about structure and goals could have come from, as I can't find anything remotely similar on Google. –dlthewave ☎ 22:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Q. Telfer[edit]

Robbie Q. Telfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local poet. I don't see any significant, in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Neutrality^talk 18:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging JzG, who proposed deletion. Neutrality^talk 19:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I read down the list of articles prodded last week, and this was one that I clearly felt a need to endorse the prod. In no way is the subject notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merely local poet who has not obtained coverage from multiple independent/reliable sources. desmay (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Saldan[edit]

Richard Saldan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not significantly covered in reliable sources. Can't find sources of the awards he's won so they're unlikely to be notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO PriceDL (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:SIGCOV, specifically WP:ENT; subsequently WP:BLPSPS. Looking at the ref regarding the publication of a book, it was a self-published work requiring a hard look at WP:SELFCITE, regardless of the reference. Additionally the reference at pr.com is hardly WP:SECONDARY sourcing. As for the subject failing WP:ENT, he has not opened for Penn & Teller, he has not won any international award. I find no relevant mention to performances on stage with even notable magicians. I would regard this article's existence as a WP:SELFPROMOTION. Ventric (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Space Command[edit]

Naval Space Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This Article is entirely plagiarized from https://fas.org/spp/military/program/track/spasur_at.htm, with that plagiarized article being the only source.Garuda28 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as this blatant plagiarism is not only encyclopedic, but also is only from the single source on the article. Garuda28 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 18:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note really need to mention/tag this discussion on the actual article so it is visible to interested parties, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't even realize I didn't do that yet.Garuda28 (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment government military websites are public domain so if that site copied the material from govt website then it is not copyvio. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: The information copied was from the Federation of American Scientists, which is not a government institution.Garuda28 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But did the FAS copy public domain material ? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely cited it (given the footnotes). Given that these sites are now all offline I see nothing that suggests that they copied it. Garuda28 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article as it was an existing military command, but delete any content that violates copyright. If that turns out to be everything, then leave what bare-bones is left with a "military stub" tag. - ^theWOLFchild 21:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it gets blanked due to lack of copyright/sourcing would you support transition to a redirect to the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, since that’s it’s successor and well sourced? Garuda28 (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - What is the date on the FAS article? This article dates back to 2011 - is it possible FAS copied from us? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the date, but I’d say that’s not likely. In their format it’s common to have URLs at the end as citation, but ours. We see in the article that URLs are listed in the end of sections in the same format. Plus the FAS one has significantly more information. Also there are no citations other than the FAS on on our article, whereas the FAS one has numerous citations to websites that don’t appear to have been online (such as SPACOM) since the early 2000s.Garuda28 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The organization is notable. Deletion is not cleanup. If there is a copyvio, stub it down, however I believe this IS NOT A COPYVIO as it is a copy of www.spacecom.af.mil in 2002 (that FAS copied) - and that seems to be a government website whose contents are generally public domain as US government work.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubify. The subject is clearly notable, the only concern is that it is not well referenced, and possible copyvio exists. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is notable. No evidence of copyvio. Okay to copy a PD source; this can be noted with a ((Include-USGov)) template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfD is to establish an article's notability as a topic, not the quality of the article itself. This topic is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I completely agree with editor Necrothesp. This article meets WP:GNG. It may need to be adjusted at the stub level, as cited above; but it should not be a subject for AfD. Ventric (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Copy-Paste Tag added with links! 12--Safe My Edit (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a copyvio, copied from gvmt web site www.spacecom.af.mil in 2002.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Louise Dudley[edit]

Patricia Louise Dudley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF (but feel free to tell me otherwise, not too sure with handling that criterion yet) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on recent improvements, I would now suggest Keep as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing indicates she passes any of the criteria for academic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. It is hard to find information about older women scientists. Perhaps more can be found and the article kept. The article was created as a translation of fr:Patricia Louise Dudley as part of Wikipedia:Meetup/UNC/Women in Science 2017. The only two references I can find are:
  • McLaughlin, Patsy A.; Sandra Gilchrist (1 June 1993). "Women's contribution to carcinology". In Frank Truesdale (ed.). History of Carcinology. CRC Press. p. 200. ISBN 978-90-5410-137-6.
  • Damkaer, David M. (December 2004). "Patricia Louise Dudley (1929 – 2004)" (PDF) (48): 10. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

StarryGrandma (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I assume the Monoculus piece is as good as it gets. She seems to have been a dedicated teacher and taxonomist for all of her career, and inshallah, that's not good enough for an article based on out guidelines. Those really need an overhaul. Do you know how many ****ing Romanian soccer players I have NPP-reviewed as "notable" this week? :( --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. The article has been expanded with more references. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this article survives then the redirect Pat Dudley needs to become a dab page - it's the form of name used in the page about the endowment in her name. PamD 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote added to target of redirect, to achieve same end. PamD 13:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: When there's an endowment in her name, "Who was this Patricia Dudley?" is a question Wikipedia ought to be able to answer. Notable within the small world of Copepodologists, having a detailed obit in their newsletter. (And that obit mentions that "A longer notice on the life and work of Patricia Dudley is planned for the Journal of Crustacean Biology." Anyone got access to that for 2004-5?) PamD 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The endowment is a good argument, I think. - There doesn't seem to exist a longer article in the Journal of Crustacean Biology; although they do print the odd obituary, the archives [5] don't show up anything on her. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've been watching this article since it was nominated for AfD; it has improved considerably. She was the Chair of the biology department for decades at a notable university in addition to the endowment honor. It does seem odd (if not disappointing) that neither Barnard College nor Columbia University seem to have recognized or acknowledged Dudley's passing. Perhaps they did and it is not searchable on the web? Based on the time period of her work in the field of Copepods, and the chair position plus endowment, I am leaning towards a keep. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I had my doubts initially about her notability, as only an NSF faculty fellow award was not enough, but I agree completely with PamD and Thsmi002 that her article now evidences her notability. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also had my doubts initially, but improvements over the course of the AfD have satisfied them. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PamD and Thsmi002 and After improvements .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I totally agree with PamD. Also, Thsmi002, I thought the same thing about not being noticed. Looking at databases, it seems like she has a common name, esp if you search using only her middle initial. So far I haven't turned anything up, but it could be buried in an offline archive. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in contemporary newspapers in New York or in Washington state? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmann Kolkata[edit]

Bookmann Kolkata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Individual bookstores are not notable unless there is some significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing enough coverage in reliable sources to meet corporate notability guidelines. Looks like a pretty ordinary bookseller. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cannot merge because target does not exist. Sandstein 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slosh Park[edit]

Slosh Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No claim made to notability, WP:CRYSTAL John from Idegon (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Milwaukee Harbor District (currently a red-link; if there's interest I'll create that page). The physical space and the organization do exist, though this park is still in the planning phase. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or Delete with option to redirect  Nothing in Google books, this is more of a PROMO than a record of history.  I don't see any purpose to mentioning the park until it is more than a plan. 
  On the other hand, the Milwaukee Harbor District was created in 2015 and a search shows it is not recorded in the encyclopedia...a redirect to some material added to a relevant topic would be a good idea, and I can't say that that material should or should not mention the park.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cidney Fisk[edit]

Cidney Fisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

At best, the lawsuit could some day be notable. She definitely isn't, and unless something else occurs to make her such, she won't be per WP:BLP1E John from Idegon (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly a non-notable individual. The article also has serious violations of NPOV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. The content looks to me as if she sent her Statement of Claim for the court to two local newspapers which may then have interviewed her. The article this projects only her POV, not that of the school board and other entities sued. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. New Atheism is dead and atheism related news is typically getting weak/zero coverage. She has no significant news coverage from reliable sources. She has no backing from ACLU or a national atheist organization. desmay (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Most deletes here appear to be from self-declared Christians. Peterkingiron being the exception. Please note that Christians have a history of hostility to Atheists.

Note: above comment made by Jmv2009, the article creator. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, also may be WP:TOOSOON. ps. i don't know about being a Christian, but i do like bunnies Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 18:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Binaca Geetmala records[edit]

List of Binaca Geetmala records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. There is no doubt that Binaca Geetmala itself is notable, but this is a disparate collection of records and statistics sourced to a single blog post. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Thank you for informing me. I didn't think it may be insignificant. If it is deleted, I've no saying. But I think before deleted, this stats should be added to the main Binaca Geetmala article as a column. I actually thought that if there is billboard top chart records in a seperate article then why shouldn't be about Binaca Geetmala? মাখামাখি (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Because apart from being indiscriminate collection and original reaserch, the article is completely replication of list from blog post, utter unreliable source. Don't merge indiscriminate information from unreliable source to pollute another article. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that the article List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones has been nominated for deletion four times and each time has been kept. Is there any reason why this equivalent article for India, a more populous contry that the one served by Billboard and where popular music is just as popular, should be treated differently? This is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, because the other stuff was discussed and kept at AfD. I also note that we have a category with over 200 members devoted to the Billboard charts. To delete one of the articles about the equivalent charts for India would seem like systemic bias in the extreme. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference would be the difference in coverage in independent, reliable sources. That is all we're really concerned with. List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones cites dozens of articles and several full-length books that discuss Billboard records and statistics. This article was only sourced to a blog post, and I was not able to find anything else. Our efforts at countering systematic bias can't extend to including topics where no sources have been shown to exist. – Joe (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is in coverage in independent reliable sources available in English from Google searches, not in such sources in general. It was accepted in the deletion discussions for the Billboard equivalent that sources from Billboard itself are sufficient and that other sources must be available, even if not found yet. We should give the same consideration to topics outside the anglophone world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and if you or someone else could point to sources in other languages, I would be happy to withdraw. – Joe (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR as two out of three sources are links to blogs/self published sources. Also WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Werbe[edit]

Richard Werbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

this page fails WP:ANYBIO. There is no reason to believe that Studypool already is a "widely recognized contribution" in the field of online education. Shemer77 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is misleading. Werbe was one of 30 under 30 recognized by Forbes, in 2017, in education. That is they create these lists of 30 under 30 every year, and multiple lists at that. Nothing that actually shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article fails to meet WP:ANYBIO. He has been recognized by Forbes, but lack of significant coverage reflects a case of Wikipedia:Too soon.desmay (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Magnolia677 (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ra Diggs[edit]

Ra Diggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:PERP. Ephemeral press coverage for his criminal acts; little notability as a musician. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. This has received what appears to be both WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV. The subject appears to have been the gang leader of the Bloods in New-York. He was convicted of multiple crimes (so not a BLP1E - in addition we have coverage of the rap angle and post conviction coverage) and we have continuing coverage of convictions of his henchmen. The legal case itself was somewhat novel in that his own Youtube rap videos were used as evidence against in the trial - which has led to coverage in the BBC for instance [6] and elsehwere [7], [8].Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Icewiz above, however the article should focus more on the notability of the criminal acts with less on the YouTube, though both are needed as they tie together the notability. Gatemansgc (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brittanya McCall Razavi[edit]

Brittanya McCall Razavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although this has been around a long time, it has failed to gather any reliable independednt references except for her criminal assault conviction. This is a woman who apeared on a reality show and featured on some magazine covers. There seems to be no other reasonable claim to notability. Several of the claims to fame in the lede are not supported by any evidence nor by any searches. Fails WP:GNG by a mile  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Yet not qualified for WP:NMODEL--Safe My Edit (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 have discounted the SPAs. The remaining keep arguments are variations on "definitely a real organization", which is not exactly an incisive, policy-based argument. A Train^talk 12:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Christian Coalition[edit]

Covenant Christian Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Borderline WP:HOAX. This is essentially a website with a list of churches. There is indeed an organisation, but it has a fake NY address, and it doesn't represent anybody else, as it claims to, since it adds denominations to the list without their knowledge or permission. Also, there is a complete lack of notability - no independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. StAnselm (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this is a legitimate organization as I noted on the article's Talk page. There were already reliable secondary sources (FaithStreet, TGC) and yesterday someone pointed out that the CCC is in the UN's Civil Society Database, which is about as reliable as you can get. It claims to have been founded two years ago, so a lack of notability in news articles is not surprising. I vote to keep, but suggest possibly revising some of the wording in the article. - Elder-ado (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC) — Elder-ado (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The UN and Gospel Coalition references are just directory listings - see [9]. Even if it is a real organisation, it is not a notable one. The fact that that might because it's relatively new makes no difference to us here on WP. StAnselm (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't just any listings. They're the United Nations and The Gospel Coalition. The former isn't just a directory - they have stringent review processes for inclusion. The United Nations DESA database is notable in itself. The latter is one of the largest and most notable evangelical organizations in the United States, which also doesn't arbitrarily add listings. I think this discussion was probably premature and there are likely more sources out there. Many, many articles have fewer and less notable sources including some of your own (apparently). - Elder-ado (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the UN listings are reviewed, but it's too much to say they have a "stringent review process". It appears any NGO may be added. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable enough. We should keep it, but I can help revise wording that might not be neutral. The sources are good, but it could use a few more just like most articles out there. From a quick search I was able to find that UN source and I also just found a few published sources.--Kigozi Af (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC) — Kigozi Af (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

When you say "enough", what threshold of notability are you using? StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems users have added plenty of sources that appear to be reliable, I would encourage you to give it a rest. There are thousands of articles with fewer, more dubious, or no sources and as a previous user pointed out--even some of your own. This is a real, albeit young organization that was formed by a number of church leaders, primarily from the U.S., but also some from Africa, Latin America, and the Philippines. I also know first-hand that the CCC funds an orphanage and school network in Kampala. DavidStats (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- If genuinely what is claimed, this has the potential to be a very significant organisation, but it appears to be seeking to be a clone of World Evangelical Alliance. My preference would be to keep but heavily tag it for better sourcing: I found nothing in the way of G-news or newspaper hits, which O would have expected if truly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, that sounds like the most reasonable approach. I can fix the POV and notability issues. So we keep, but leave the "primary sources" tag? Are there any other tags to add to help expand this article? From what I can find it is similar to the World Evangelical Alliance, but with perhaps a slightly more conservative slant and different organizational objectives (see http://www.ccc.one/p/purpose.html). Similar to the difference between the World Reformed Fellowship and the World Communion of Reformed Churches.--Kigozi Af (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that this article already has more secondary sourcing than similar organizations that have mostly only primary sourcing (or no refs) such as the World Reformed Fellowship, International Lutheran Council, Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference, International Conference of Reformed Churches, among others.--Kigozi Af (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But those could be easily sourced with significant coverage in reliable sources - e.g. [10]. No such sourcing exists for CCC. In any case, those organizations have an actual membership; CCC does not. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denominations don't join, but churches and ministries do, so, yes, it does have membership. I even know the leadership from a few of the churches that have formally joined including Church of Christ at Gold Hill in Fort Mill and Syosset Gospel Church in Syosset, NY. DavidStats (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's definitely a real organization. A number of other references were added in response to the nomination for deletion and POV was improved. Close the discussion, but add tags to help expand. DavidStats (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A Google search] for "Covenant Christian Coalition" excluding its website - ccc.on - and the subsidiary sites godsong.org and hehodos.com returns only 4 pages, and none of them is for a news outlet. That the CCC apparently lists an entire denomination and its membership as belonging to the CCC after even a single local congregation signs up means that it is trying to inflate its importance and influence. I would also note that several newly-created and single-purpose editors have been adding the CCC to the WP articles for the various denominations listed on the CCC membership page, which may mean a conflict of interest issue is also involved. Indyguy (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there were several things going on here. First, POV issues in the original article. Second, StAnselm's concerns over notability. Third, some user(s) added links, perhaps indiscriminately. The first issue seems to be resolved. The second issue seems to be resolved insofar as necessary for an independent article (WP notability does not require news sources; it already had refs in several reliable/reviewed Christian directories and refs from books, church websites, and even the UN were added subsequent to the nomination for deletion). That may not satisfy StAnselm, but it is arguably enough for inclusion. Third, I think the links might be a C.O.I. and should probably be removed, but I'll stick with keep for the main article in question. Also, StAnselm and IndyGuy have made some assumptive claims that can't be proven without further investigation. The previous claim "the CCC apparently lists an entire denomination and its membership as belonging to the CCC after even a single local congregation signs up" is not true according to their website and bylaws. It adds denominations based merely on a test of doctrine, but churches and ministries are added by registering and are actual members independent of the denominational list. DavidStats (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article as written is perpetuating a fraud on the encyclopedia. Extraordinary claims like "700 million members" require some independent referencing or notability. It's clearly not true that it represents some 1,479,414 local churches and approximately 704 million individuals. Based on the references, I'm not sure this exists as an organization beyond its website. There are a lot of SPAs voting here as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I read through all of this and have to side with keep. It's a real organization and plenty of sources were found after articles of deletion were added. Delete claims don't seem legitimate, just a POV issue, so fix the POV and add tags if necessary. Wiki rules very clearly discourage deletion of articles over POV disagreements. Clearly denominations don't join, but many churches apparently have. Their members are only Christian churches and ministries, but they endorse entire denominations apparently. Tech878 NN (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  Nothing on Google books or Google news, and Google web is Facebook and mirrors.  Manta reports, "We are a privately held company in New York, NY."  FaithStreet and GospelCoalition are church directories with self-published pages.  Whatever this is, it is at best a 2015 startup, one we can ignore (WP:SUSTAINED) until 2022.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentine: The Short Program[edit]

Serpentine: The Short Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

utterly Non notable short film. Fails NFILM and GNG. Was never generally released and even its out of theatre distribution is limited. John from Idegon (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. I also note that the article's creator, User:Omicron4, is a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to promote Mark Lund, the writer and producer of the movie, and two other indie films Lund made. I've prodded the other two. Ravenswing 18:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club[edit]

Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG, esp WP:CORPDEPTH John from Idegon (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure from all of this code what the concerns are, that might cause this page to be deleted. You cite WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH, and I've read those links, but I'm not sure how they apply to this page. We've worked hard to make sure this page for the Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club (UVARC) is put out on Wikipedia, and will be happy to do what we need to do, to keep it out there. We've taken notes from pages such as the South Jersey Radio Association to pattern this page after. Since UVARC is the largest amateur radio club in Utah, and one of the largest in the western US, we believe that fact alone to be notable. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojiratz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References need to be to reliable source coverage in media, not to the organization's own self-published content about itself or to routine databases which every organization that exists at all would always have an entry in. And per WP:ORGDEPTH, that coverage has to extend beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nearly all the references here are primary sources that cannot support notability in a Wikipedia article, and the few that are actually media coverage are purely local and thus don't pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Having a Wikipedia article is not an entitlement; it's a thing that an organization has to meet certain standards of sourceability to earn, and one of those standards is that there has to be much better sourcing to support it than what's present here. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  See WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:Alternative outlets.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you're saying, but not quite understanding it all, especially the self-references. Anyway, how can I get a copy of the original page code, so that we might keep it for when we can satisfy your requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojiratz (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Supermarket[edit]

Lucky Supermarket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Small chain of specialist groceries with 5 locations in 3 cities. Failing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Winnipeg Free Press article certainly counts as substantial coverage, but that's the only published source I can find. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable supermarket chain, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Corporate spam, fails WP:SPIP. I'd also say that the Winipeg Free Press does not meet the definition for substantial coverage but regardless, the article is based on a corporate announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the coverage is WP:MILL, and there are at least two other groups of supermarkets with similar names; one in California (Lucky Stores) and one in Alabama ([11] - Lucky's, 4 stores) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siarhey Balakhonau[edit]

Siarhey Balakhonau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's very doubtful whether this person meets our notability requirements. The article is essentially unreferenced; it is sourced only to his personal website and a now-defunct blog. And I can find nothing substantial about him, his two books, or any of the magazines he's supposedly published in. In fact, sourcing is so scant that I almost thought I was dealing with an elaborate hoax article until I thought to search under the alternate spelling of Sergey Balakhonov. All I could find kind of verifies that he exists, but doesn't help the notability situation. Reyk _YO! 12:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur with Reyk's findings. We can show this person exists perhaps, and that they've published a couple of books. But, just getting published does not make someone notable. There's nothing in this article to suggest anything that would pass WP:NAUTHOR. Further, there is no a single source in the article nor anywhere that I can find on the web that supports any notion of notability, except (again) that he exists. I am sensitive to the reality that non-English speaking/writing creative professionals are harder to find sources for, but there's just nothing to go on here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OxySure[edit]

OxySure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Highly promotional article of a non-notable company that doesn't appear to pass GNG. Google and Google News check brings up a bit of WP:ROUTINE coverage, mostly revolving around its stock price, which is currently three-tenths of one U.S. penny. There are also a few stories about a 2015 FDA recall of one of its products. The article has references, but they are mostly press releases or from the company's own website:
1, 4, 9, and 14 are from the company's website.
2, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are all press releases.
3 is a page at the New York Times' website which states "News about OxySure Systems Inc., including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times." and then proceeds to list no articles.
5 is about the FDA recall.
6 is a transcript of an earnings call from the company CEO.
7 is a routine product announcement.
Egsan Bacon (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- promotional 'cruft on a nn business. Sourcing here fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Corporate spam, no indications of notability, fails WP:SPIP and GNG. References are all PRIMARY sources and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthani Film Directors[edit]

Rajasthani Film Directors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:OR Chetsford (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic original research, which reliable sources discusses these listed directors?. An this is inching towards territory of indiscriminate. Because gathering names of directors of country will easily be supported by sources that mentioned them, but the article have no encyclopedia content. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:OR. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G5, yet another attempt by Vijaysuthar008877. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 12:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Wahlström[edit]

Johannes Wahlström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Falling WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR Shrike (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AfD is not a clean-up service. Simple google search came up with plenty of references to confirm notability. This articles subject is within WP:GNG. That the article needs a lot of work is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its only name drops as far as I checked.--Shrike (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's always tricky to establish the notability of journalists as they become famous by writing, and we can't easily evaluate notability from a person's own writings. However, Wahlström is well-known both in Sweden (and he's all over their major newspapers) and abroad (e.g. in Norway), not least for Wikileaks, as this Guardian article shows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I think this is passable; the subject has a sv.wiki article which is indicative of notability as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Source in the article and sources posted by power~enwiki are insufficient to support a BLP. A Train^talk 12:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rabih Baroud[edit]

Rabih Baroud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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)

Has been lacking citations since 2016, with the only giving source stating his day and month of birth. Additionally doesnt appear notable as per WP:MUSICBIO Zocke1r (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless someone can come up with some very convincing RS in the next 7 days. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte does not pass notability. Considering that some articles on actors have gone 10 years without a reliable source, I have to admit lacking a source since 2016 does not seem all that bad, which just goes to show how much work needs to be done on keeping only articles with sources. I invite people to help with the actor articles, there is a lot of work to do, and very little gets done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep there are some Google News hits in English (largely about a song he's doing for a Bollywood film [12]), and also some pages in Arabic (such as [13]). I don't see any detailed biographical pieces on him. It's claimed that he had songs on The Official Lebanese Top 20, but that chart isn't listed at WP:CHART (nor are any Arabic-language charts, as far as I can tell). The article content needs improvement, and it's borderline from a notability point of view. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fessler[edit]

Daniel Fessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable person. Notability has not been established, even in the prior deletion discussion. This would fall under A7 for speedy deletion, but somehow this article survived a deletion discussion in 2010. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 09:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly not an A7. It was not deleted in 2010 because the subject passed WP:PROF on multiple criteria. That hasn't changed. In fact the case for him passing #C1 as a highly cited researcher is much stronger than it was before: he has 18 papers that have been cited over 100 times, one that has been cited over 1000 times, and a h-index of 39. That is a lot of coverage! – Joe (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Perhaps you nominate the wrong article not the one you intended. Besides numerous points highlighted above, he also passes WP:PROF #8. He has been editor in chief of peer-reviewed academic journal Evolution and Human Behavior. Thus passing multiple criteria. Though the article is in bad shape, but that is not reason for deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per prior AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The case for WP:PROF was weak (but confirmed) ten years ago; it is strong now. The nomination statement fails to advance a reason for deletion that justifies overturning the previous consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep h-index high 30s, ed of a mainstream journal, etc. Nom may wish to withdraw this to save time. Agricola44 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calma Carmona[edit]

Calma Carmona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Queried speedy delete. It was speedy-delete-tagged by User:89.154.149.145 for "It doesn't fulfill the criteria for singers and musicians on Wikipedia, and keeps containing personal promotion and advertising, without objective point of view" (and tagged ((Autobiography|date=December 2017)), ((Advert|date=December 2017)), ((Peacock|date=December 2017))). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep provided edits to the article corresponding with the inline requests are acceptable. The subject is clearly notable, and the quotations are from published sources, however the original article appears to have been created as a promotional bio. This article came to notice during the construction independently of an article on 'Derek Williams (musician)' currently in the 'Chrisdevelop' Sandbox in the context of the subject's connection with Calma Carmona as performer for the notable Whisky brand Glenfiddich to record a video ad with the notable Scottish Opera orchestra, that gained 1.7 million hits on YouTube. At that point, there were several flags already within the text of the article alerting editors to language, arguably self-promotional, that was not corroborated with appropriate citations. To save the article, the flagged quotations were either deleted if they could not be sourced, or verified with citations linking to the article where the author of the language could be identified and quoted. Chrisdevelop (talk)

@Anthony Appleyard: The article has now been edited to address the flagged issues (removal of extraneous weblinks, tightening up language and relocation of useful links to citations). Please provide feedback on whether the issues have been adequately addressed. The inserted notifications have been left in place pending feedback. Chrisdevelop (talk)

• It is rather unclear what the deletion rationale from the nominator is. Are you, @Anthony Appleyard:, saying that you support deletion on the grounds stated or are you simply enabling a discussion on behalf of an unregistered editor? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At "Queried speedy delete." I merely decided that the deletion request needed to be discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @89.154.149.145:@Anthony Appleyard:@86.17.222.157:@Babymissfortune: Autobiography, Advert and Peacock flags, and the large number of external links appear to have been the original reasons for speedy deletion. Please provide feedback on whether the recent edits have satisfactorily addressed these issues. Seems odd to have a Speedy Delete for an article for which notability was already established by surviving the NPP, and there has been no subsequent input from the Speedy Deletion nominator. Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Very Weak Keep- The sourcing in the article is poor. Outside of the Vibe Magazine article, I don't think there's much to establish notability (everything else is eitheir not well-known or not reliable). However, I also found this NPR article [14]. With that there's barely enough for her to meet WP:NMUSICIAN #1 in my opinion.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Added. Chrisdevelop (talk)

Also found and added another album released on AllMusic, Amor Millonario (2011). Have also added Apple Music songs, where there are quite a few more albums, and a list of Top Songs to the Discography. Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Keep. Enough coverage to establish notability. I'm not convinced an AfD discussion is required just because of some dodgy speedy tagging by an anonymous editor. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that an AfD discussion is not required just because of some dodgy speedy tagging, but it would be just as unrequired if the dodgy speedy tagging was by a logged-in editor. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. --Michig (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• However without this AfD discussion, the article would presumably have sunk without trace following speedy deletion. Chrisdevelop (talk)

• Speedy keep. The nominator has not advanced any support for deletion, so this qualifies for WP:SK#1. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed Chrisdevelop (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of institutes and colleges affiliated with Board of Intermediate Education Karachi[edit]

List of institutes and colleges affiliated with Board of Intermediate Education Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We aren't record keepers. We never had list for college who are affiliated with CIE or IB. Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTMIRROR. Störm (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also nominating the following related page because of above given reason:

List of institutes and colleges affiliated with University of Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Störm (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Regarding List of institutes and colleges affiliated with University of Karachi, I looked at the talk page and see no WP:BEFORE C3 engagement with the content contributors.  On the other hand, there don't seem to be any content contributors represented here, so maybe they don't care.  I also looked at the "What links here" and it is hard to analyze the impact there.  I'd recommend that this topic be removed from this AfD as per WP:TRAINWRECK.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]