The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G6 by User:DGG. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Aviation (disambiguation)[edit]

Lynx Aviation (disambiguation) (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)

Only one real entry. The other doesn't have an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. I want to be surprised this one went 10 years before being caught, but I'm not. Good catch, Clarity! - BilCat (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, WP:G6. This would fall under "disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"". -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete The second entry should have just been removed as an entry with no wikilinks or article and then speedy delete. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing appropriate for a dab page here. PamD 11:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FanBridge[edit]

FanBridge (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 private company; significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is routine for tech startups -- TechCrunch, online profile, funding news, etc, as well as speculative headlines, as in: Could this startup...?

The article has been previously deleted following a 2011 AfD. Created in 2016 by Special:Contributions/LandonLCarter with no other contributions outside of this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another branding platform. scope_creep (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete fails CORPDEPTH. I think GNG could be reached, the Tech Crunch coverage is a good start. Not enough, though. South Nashua (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus Solicitors[edit]

Nexus Solicitors (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)

N - sourcing fails WP:CORP, DEPTH isn't good. Previous Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nexus_Solicitors was low participation Widefox; talk 22:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Small law firm (9 partners, 33 lawyers including non-partners).Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The text and available references indicate a company going about its business with routine announcements, but nothing available, including the Legal500 listing, appears indicative of encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails gng Chetsford (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KazhutALOOR SIVA TEMPLE[edit]

KazhutALOOR SIVA TEMPLE (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 to meet WP:GNG guidelines. Could not find any sources that indicated notability Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TNT Power~enwiki (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I find nothing that indicates even minimum notability. Not even sure it's real.Glendoremus (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) feminist 01:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Murray (field hockey player)[edit]

Sean Murray (field hockey player) (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 have been unable to locate many reliable independent sources. Fails WP:NSPORT, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. There is some coverage but most is trivial ROTM sports coverage and match reports that are otherwise to be expected. Nothing to indicate broader notability. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guliolopez (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. He has played for a national team in the FIH Hockey World League.[1] There is no specific guideline in WP:NSPORT for field hockey, but in most other sports, an international cap makes the subject notable. The article would be bolstered by more coverage in reliable sources. However, I think the best course for the article at this point is to improve sourcing rather than delete. I'm willing to revisit the matter in six months if no sources turn up after searching. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Otero (Magician)[edit]

Luis Otero (Magician) (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 magician lacking non-trivial support. Fails to show notability. reddogsix (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to be a semi-notable to notable Latin-American magician who is very popular with his audiences.[2] Spanish speaker needed to establish notability via reliable sources. Knox490 (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Let's be clear, the only measure of notability is establishing the article subject meets the criteria in WP:N or associated criteria. Stating a subject appears to be notable has no bearing in this discussion. reddogsix (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Famous magician like Max Maven wrote great things about Luis in this page http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/7725 this page is one of the most important vendor of magic tutorials. As well Jeff McBride wrote awesome review in the same page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandourbina (talk • contribs)

• Comment - As well you can put Luis Otero Magician in Google and you will see all his work in many pages, videos are published too acting in TV Shows such as Bogota Magia y Humor

In this page you will see http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/7725 below reviews

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandourbina (talk • contribs)

Comment - First of all the website "http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/7725" is hardly independent. References must be independent. Beyond that, in order for an article to be retained in Wikipedia, the article must be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The quotes above do nothing to meet the required support. reddogsix (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article reads as a promotion. Search of magic books and periodicals through from Conjuring Arts Research Center fails to convinced me of notability PriceDL (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Group (brokerage firm)[edit]

Boulder Group (brokerage firm) (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 notable Geejayen (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:N, WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mélencron (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French presidential election, 2022[edit]

French presidential election, 2022 (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:CRYSTALBALL; incredibly premature, most declarations of candidacies probably won't be known until past 2020, and there probably won't be more than a dozen polls until 2020 as well – article is simply an empty husk until then. Mélencron (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, WP:CRYSTAL is typically interpreted to allow an article on the next one in an ongoing series of notable events; the guideline specifically mentions the 2020 US Presidential election as an example of an appropriate article topic. Unless there is something particularly uncertain about the next French election, I'd think there will quickly be enough material to add here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As has been pointed out by Arxiloxos, the nominator misunderstands WP:CRYSTAL, which allows for articles on "Individual scheduled or expected future events... [that are] notable and almost certain to take place". See, for example, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020 (2nd nomination). Number 57 06:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. An article on the 2027 election would be too premature though and that could probably be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Not this one. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep– per the other votes, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to the next election in a regular cycle. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom has cited WP:CRYSTAL which states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". It also states, in the first point, that examples of appropriate topics for articles about upcoming events include future elections. AusLondonder (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of theaters and cinemas in Hyderabad[edit]

List of theaters and cinemas in Hyderabad (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)

Same as first nomination (which was withdrawn) as it fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A whole long list of non-notable cinemas and original research to add Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains minimal sourcing and does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines.TH1980 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The city have some world class cinema's such as ( Prasads IMAX and is a hub of Telugu cinema ) and few historical theaters which are of good information. So the list could be of good information.--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two list articles is hardly a measure for list notability. Ajf773 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything notable on its own should have its own article. Otherwise...we're not a business directory. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only one entry has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a lot of original research has gone into these lists. None of the info is referenced. Agree with others--Wiki is not a directory.Glendoremus (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Eternity[edit]

Modern Eternity (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 evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only found shop listings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that this subject does not meet the notability guidelines. As for redirecting/merging, there is no target to merge to and the current article does not mention the film in any detail worth creating a stand-alone article from. If and when an article about the film is created, this can be recreated as a redirect. And if someone really needs the text to create such an article about the film, I'm willing to provide a copy for this purposes if asked. Regards SoWhy 12:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Wu[edit]

Eunice Wu (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 film maker. No mentions in press, search pulls up non RS primaries, fails GNG and all 4 criterion of WP:NFILMMAKER L3X1 (distant write) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out whether it could redirect to some article regarding California Proposition 8 (2008) or Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008) but it is not mentioned in any of the articles. Same with film festivals. If it won some film festival award maybe it could redirect there? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to The Best Is Yet To Come (2010 film) as the film itself passes WP:NFILM having per http://ideas.org.tw/magazine_article.php?f=408 "來自台灣的Eunice Wu所執導女同志電影《The Best Is Yet To Come》即入圍了全球22個電影獎的獎項。been shown at 22 festivals and received press coverage, but the director appears to have not made anything notable since, and the benchmark for a BLP article is higher than for a film. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best. Not sure if there is anything that could be rescued by merging into the non-yet existing article on the movie. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for filmmakers, not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move, per User:In ictu oculi's reasonable suggestion. This leaves a redirect behind. --doncram 21:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and keep, per WP:Preserve Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Googling the film yields nothing but self-published results/PR releases. Which are the 22 film festivals? I highly doubt any of them is notable. Timmyshin (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The best may be yet to come, but it isn't here yet. One short film without any awards claimed doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this individual clearly doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. The suggestion to create an article about the film and then redirect there would be a good one, if the film itself were notable, but I see no evidence of that either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thame United F.C.. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASM Stadium[edit]

ASM Stadium (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 about the home ground of a football club that plays at the ninth level of football and which has never hosted football higher than level eight (the generally accepted cut-off point in English football is level 5, the lowest national level). Article created by the same editor who has created seevral articles on players for the club despite them not being notable (see these AfDs, one of which he ignored and recreated the article shortly after it had closed). Unsurprisingly it was said editor who also removed the prod without a rationale. I think the possibility of a topic ban may also require consideration if the community's time is going to be continued to be wasted in this way. Number 57 18:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Thame United F.C., the home club. GiantSnowman 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per GiantSnowman. It's a plausible search term, and the team is notable (the cutoff for teams is Level 10, not Level 5), but it's not notable in its own right. Smartyllama (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - a plausible search term and I would expect a brief section on the stadium in the club article. The deletion rationale is flawed however, there is no consensus for cut off for ground notability, nor should there be as this is already governed by WP:GEOFEAT, a guideline which this stadium fails. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per GiantSnowman Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – per above. A valid search term I believe but not appropriate as a stand alone article. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist 01:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Museum of Natural History[edit]

Colorado Museum of Natural History (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)

Wrong use of DAB. It creates confusion because one article is about a municipal natural history and science museum in Denver, Colorado named the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and the other article is about the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History which is a museum of natural history at a university in Boulder, Colorado. Neither of the aforementioned articles indicates any concern over readers being confused by the very different names. I also don't see any evidence where there was a name change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Numerous sources note that the Denver Museum of Nature and Science was previously the Denver Museum of Natural History, and before that its original name, for almost 50 years, was in fact Colorado Museum of Natural History, e.g. [3][4][5][6] etc. Indeed, it appears that the actual legal name of the Denver museum's organizational entity is still Colorado Museum of Natural History per [7][8]. Add to that the fact that when you Google this name, you get a consistent, relatively even mixture of Denver and Boulder results. Seems like there's a reasonable need for disambiguation. Having said that, perhaps some use of reciprocal headnotes, per WP:TWODABS, might suffice. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the links, Arxiloxos, they actually provide the supporting documentation necessary to delete the dab, and I'll briefly explain why. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science has changed its name twice (every half-century), but it's still in the same location. It was the Colorado Museum of Natural History from 1900-1950 when the name was changed to the Denver Museum of Natural History, then in 2000 it became the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. The dab page is what confuses readers. When I first saw it (as an article instead of a dab), I thought maybe one wasn't a museum because of the way we use dab, but as I studied it a bit more, I realized the links were to two different museums. Why? 67 years have passed since the Denver museum was called the Colorado Museum of Natural History, which is still located in Denver where it has always been. On the other hand, the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History is located on the University of Colorado Boulder campus 35+ miles away - a different museum in a completely different city. I suppose we could create a dab for the museums in each state that have the Museum of Natural History in their names, or had a name change nearly a century ago. That's going to require a lot of dabbing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unless it can be demonstrated that one of these entities is the primary topic of the term. If this leads to disambiguation pages for every state with a similar situation, so be it. bd2412 T 10:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article titles are not ambiguous, as would be a search for Mercury or Paris Treaty. The names won't cause editors to wikilink to the wrong article. A WP search for the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History takes you to the correct article, as it should. A search for the Denver Museum of Nature and Science takes you to the correct article, as it should. If I'm not mistaken, my interpretation of a dab page is that it should not be used as a TOC or list of names in a category such as Museums in Colorado. In this particular case, regardless of century old history that few even know, it's an unnecessary stop that creates confusion which defeats one of the 3 purposes of a dab, and that is to clarify ambiguous titles to help the reader "get to the information on that topic quickly and easily". ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The purpose of the dab page is to take you to the right place if you type "Colorado museum of natural history" in the search box. There is currently no museum with precisely that name. There are 2 pages someone might mean; the CU museum (whose name is pretty close), and the Denver museum (whose name used to be exactly the dab name, but that was a while ago). We don't know which one they want. I don't think you could call either one the primary topic, so you need to ask the reader which one they mean. I disagree this page confuses the reader; it's purpose, which I think it fulfills, is to avoid confusion from a reader landing on the wrong page. If someone can show one of these is the primary topic, this could be a redirect to that page with a hatnote to the other. Otherwise, keep as is. Atsme, do I understand right you think the CU museum is the primary topic? If so, why do you think that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple of reasons, Floquenbeam beginning with the parenthetical "find sources" above that links to Colorado Museum of Natural History which brings up CU in the search, at is should. When you enter Colorado museum in the WP search bar, the dab comes up, and creates confusion over the names. If anything, when Colorado museum is entered in the search bar, the List of museums in Colorado should pop-up in the search not the dab that links to only two museums with entirely different names. Colorado Museum of Natural History should link to the CU and nothing else, and it may even be better served as a #redirect. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science doesn't need a dab or a redirect because when you enter Denver museum in the search, it's there. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait; the very first item that comes up when clicking the "finding sources" link above is the ProPublica link to the Denver museum! And again, the only thing that has ever actually been called "Colorado Museum of Natural History" is the Denver museum; I can't see a justifcation for not linking to that somehow. And if there's no primary target, I think this dab page is the best solution. Anyway, wouldn't your concern be much better served by creating a redirect at Colorado museums to List of museums in Colorado so that shows up in the search box as a suggestion? Even without the issue you're reporting, that seems like a useful new redirect, so I've gone ahead and done that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, at least some progress was made. Floquenbeam, please see this diff as I sought a 2nd opinion before tagging for an AfD. I was looking to find the best solution without it being too much of a time sink considering the growing backlog in NPR which led me this article in the first place. It shouldn't be an article, and I didn't immediately see the need for a dab which is why I didn't add the template. The latter was added later by another editor which I subsequently removed in order to file this AfD. Perhaps the redirect suggestion by Sphilbrick would be the best option. If it turns out the dab stays, the dab template needs to be replaced, and the article marked as patrolled. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde and Willis (animated series)[edit]

Clyde and Willis (animated series) (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:NTV and the general notability guideline. Out of all sources provided, one appears to be the creator's website and the others don't mention the show at all. A Google search shows that this does in fact exist (and therefore does not qualify for G3 (I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong)), but only on YouTube. No other reliable, secondary sources about this show were found in my search. PROD removed by article creator. SkyWarrior 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above plus it's pretty clear that this & multiple related articles by the same creator are WP:COI pieces meant to WP:PROMO this studio after they failed to get a TV deal. JamesG5 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - After doing a bit more digging here and at the other article WP:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bernie Wilson this is [redacted] using a game platform to YouTube videos. All the references given for "deals" to buy the show do not check out. The YouTube channel for the videos has just over 100 subscribers and barely 2000 views. The new editor below suggesting "keep" shows by his edits he's another Roblox user in the friends group. This is an amateur project that does not meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 01:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Animated series has relations with Cartoon Network an undoubtebly notable TV channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aca rblx (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — Aca rblx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

NOTE The above editor campaigning for a delete is making false claims. He suggests that I know andrew which I do not. He is assuming that by the age of the person that the article is about that he is not notable. This is called age discrimination. Also they are participating in subscribercount discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aca rblx (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete makes no credible indication of notability. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above. This looks like perhaps a Wikipedia:Walled garden with a dedicated cadre mustered to argue for keep, w/o any understanding of our notability guidelines. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no references provided for coverage in reliable secondary sources. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 16:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I can find no coverage in the usual American trade publications, so this is almost certainly non-notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  06:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srinagar bypoll election killings 2017[edit]

Srinagar bypoll election killings 2017 (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:CONTENTFORK from 2016–17_Kashmir_unrest#April_2017. The article has been created for WP:PROPAGANDA. The title and the contents violate WP:NPOV by WP:CHERRYPICKing of sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As I mentioned on the talk page, this article is an extreme POV take on the affair. Some cleaned up version of this content can be added to Srinagar (Lok Sabha constituency) by-election, 2017 but there is absolutely no need for a separate article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per the above statements, and no/very little encyclopedic content in the article that does not necessitate a separate article. All issues are elaborated on the article's talk page. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 10:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Severe lack of NPOV, article from get-go implies that all casualties were targeted killings, which isn't the case here, and poll bound violence is somewhat a common occurrence in state of J&K and some parts of India.Redhat101 Talk 00:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROPAGANDA. Capitals00 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It is not a content fork, it was created first. Also it is notable event as it was first time in history of the world and India that people were killed on the day of Democratic election. So it should have separate article. I don't see any mention of target killings in the article, it is mentioned that the bullets were returned on protesters. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 11:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should open and read the page on WP:CONTENTFORK. A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. [...] Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general... You can fork the 'cuisine' article from the 'region' article if the cuisine is notable, by making a summary-style spin off. This incident is a part of 2016–17_Kashmir_unrest#April_2017. The election coincided with an ongoing unrest, and so the violence occurred on the election day. The article was created by you on 9 April.[9] The content on this subject was summarized in the unrest article on 11 April,[10] after the creation of this article, and not by you. You did not bother to summarize about this anywhere before/after your creation of this fork. Also, here is the evidence that you were an active editor of the parent article, and well-aware of its existence.[11] it was created first: Created first, before what article? Even the by-election article was created on 16 March,[12] 25 days before this article's creation. it is mentioned that the bullets were returned on protesters: Please read the 2nd section on the talk page. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More than the by-polls itself, the killings made global headlines. The event is notable enough to have its stand alone article. The Guardian Al Jazeera DAWN BBC Economic Times India Today - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom and above editors and per WP:TNT due to its pov issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against recreation once notability exists.

While there was no consensus to userfy/draftify, I'm willing to draftify the article on request. Regards SoWhy 12:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyder Kazmi[edit]

Hyder Kazmi (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 actor/director who fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG. Created by a single purpose editor who uses the said person's name indicating possible COI. User:Melcous had PRODed the page besides adding multiple tags which was removed by the said editor with an outrageous claim that the actor has received the prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2017 for a non-existent category. Lies, deceit and promotional-ism. Jupitus Smart 16:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: appears to be some claim to notability, but as written is self-promotional and the linked references mostly appear to be user generated content. Melcous (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart @Melcous As informed earlier i am new here and getting some more new sources like time of india for proof. Hyderkazmi (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being new does not give you a free hand to write such blatant lies on articles. Anyway I would like to see what source you can come up with for the claim that he won the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2017 (which incidentally will be announced only next year). Jupitus Smart 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart This is a YouTube Video with proof of him getting the award. You might have a look at it. Also just to let you know that the image on his wiki page now has the award in his hands. Forgot to mention so had to update in the same source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRuPnVEk4Ec Hyderkazmi (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be ignorant in a good faith manner, I will enlighten you on this. The Dada Saheb Film Foundation awards are non notable awards which are widely considered as paid awards - Huffington Post article. However the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is India's highest honour for film personalities. Have it changed in the article to Dada Saheb Film Foundation awards, which is what Kazmi won. As for the references, we need references from reliable sources to establish notability. Most of the references you have included do not qualify as reliable sources, according to WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. As for the Times of India articles, all of them are Press releases sourced from non-reliable sources, which are reproduced in the Times of India, as mentioned in a footnote below each of the reports.

• [13] - is sourced from bhojpuriyacinema.com
• [14], [15], [16] and [17]- are sourced from bhojpurimedia.com

These cannot also be considered as reliable, as besides being sourced from non-reliable sources, they do not seem to have undergone any editorial oversight, and seems to have been reproduced as is, considering that all of them are very badly written. Also read WP:NACTOR to know what kind of references are required to establish notability for actors. Since he needs roles in multiple notable films, and none of his movies seem to be notable, I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR. Anyway, you seem to have a conflict of interest as you share your name with the actor. If you are indeed the actor or are paid by him, I would advise you to make a declaration regarding the same. Jupitus Smart 07:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart I guess i got what you are trying to say. The sources are not reliable and are not posted by any reporter from the TOI. Those sources are from another websites. Now is there any solution to keep the article. He is an actor for sure and some people know him but there are no sources as of now i see. Need to search a bit and make sure those are reliable. Hyderkazmi (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional and not meeting notability guidelines. If there is a prospect of improved sourcing, the article could be moved to Draft space and submitted through Articles for Creation(which is the best way for someone to submit an autobiographical article, if at all) 331dot (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see an update with 2 more authentic newspapers. Telegraph links updated. If i find more sources i'll make sure to update them as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyderkazmi (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you Hyderkazmi. We generally don't allow creating Wikipages about oneself, though you seem to be civil and understanding about that. The Telegraph links are again about one of his movies, and not about the person, which still doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. And when I asked you to change the award, I thought I was clear that you should not link back to Dadasaheb Phalke Award, with the text on screen as Dada Saheb Phalke foundation Award. Also please do not edit the page with IPs to add original research, when you have an account. It is against sockpuppetry policies. Jupitus Smart 09:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh allright. I'll remove the link to Dadasaheb Phalke Award and i am still trying to find good sources. I might soon update. I know its against the guide lines but there must be some way in which i can be helped. I do not understand what should i do now. I just don't want this to be deleted. (Practically: Feeling annoyed.) Hyderkazmi (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest thing to do is wait. Any article that is deleted can be recreated when you satisfy notability guidelines. So if your future movies and you get more press coverage from reliable sources in the future, the article can easily be recreated, ideally by someone other than you. Jupitus Smart 09:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you help me create it when i have more good sources published. Hyderkazmi (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you had revealed on the talk page that you were Hyder Kazmi, when you created the page. I had an inkling of doubt earlier, though I was not sure. Anyway your interactions have been civil, unlike the slugfest that usually goes on in discussions involving Indian movie personalities, which I am used to as I edit in this field. Our autobiography policy discourages editors from creating articles about themselves, however notable they may be. As for your query, contact me on my talk page, when you feel that there are enough references about you. I am an Autopatrolled editor, and that comes with certain responsibilities. So I will try to help you create your article when you contact me in the future, though I will not create it myself, as that would bypass a review by another neutral editor. One of the reasons why we discourage autobiographical articles, is they can never be neutral and fair, and they tend to provide undue weight on the positives. I can therefore probably help to trim down your article to make it neutral, verifiable, and devoid of original research. I must also warn you that after creating your article, your page can be edited by anybody, who may add data that you may find demeaning. In such a case, there is no recourse for you, if the negative data is properly referenced, and it will end up doing more harm than good for your career. Jupitus Smart 12:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable autobiography. No issue if someone wants to draftify it so that it can be worked on under Jupitus Smart's tutelage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of the Nanda Empire[edit]

Conquest of the Nanda Empire (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)

Despite efforts by various editors since this article was created in 2011, this article is very poorly written and provides little meaningful information about the topic. It seems to be primarily made up of original research, lacks reliable sources and is not neutral in its tone. Chewings72 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've expanded the article and sources. The war/conquest was a significant event or group of events in the ancient world and seems to me to very much merit an article in Wikipedia. After my initial edit, tone and NPOV issues remain, especially with the bits I've taken from the original article. I'll try to edit these a bit more. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Chandragupta Maurya -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support last suggestion: while the subject is clearly significant (though not something I know about) what he have appears merely to be a copy and paste fork of that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, a copy-paste performed (and credited in the edit summary) May 7 was from the recently updated Conquest of the Nanda Empire article to Chandragupta Maurya, and not the other way around. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge and redirect. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Given the excellent and complete rewrite by Smmurphy, I have no issues in seeing what is now effectively a new article kept.Chewings72 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Event is notable, article has been improved. Srnec (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a notable topic, worthy of an article, meets WP:GNG, thanks to article improvements by Smmurphy. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has been improved since the nomination and now shows notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's clear from the discussion here that there is no consensus to outright delete the page. That said, calls for redirecting or merging the article are not to be ignored. While there was no consensus to redirect/merge in this discussion, this does not mean this shouldn't be done. Since AfD - unlike other XfDs - is only about whether the page should be deleted, a keep-result does not necessary prevent anyone from proposing a merger using the usual venues. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Cochran (Survivor contestant)[edit]

John Cochran (Survivor contestant) (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)

All coverage I can see appears to be Hollywood Reporter and so on. I suggest voting him off the island. EEng 13:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep He is really well known in the Survivor community, and the article has plenty of references from TV, magazines, and elsewhere. Besides, all Survivor winners get their own article, per convention. Greggens (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being well-known in some community doesn't count, and the references are almost entirely to the shows themselves. The one or two remaining are promotional fluff. If I've missed something, please point to it. EEng 20:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references may be to episodes of the show, but it's an internationally popular show, viewed by millions in the United States alone. If it's more news references you want, that can be fixed easily (click here to view latest page update). Greggens (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two sources in the article which even conceivably count as independent and reliable:

• A local newspaper item [18] which reads, in its entirety:

Oakton’s John Cochran wins ‘Survivor’ show, and $1 million – “Survivor” is the granddaddy of American reality television. It was the first one to really capture huge ratings, and helped create the revolution in television in which there are now whole channels of reality shows. In Oakton, John Cochran was watching from the start, as a 13-year-old in 2000, and he calls himself a show superfan.

Now, he is a part of Survivor history. Cochran, 26, won the 26th season of the show (there are two per year) in a live ceremony announcing the winner in Los Angeles last week. The episodes were filmed last year on Caramoan in the Philippines, where Cochran had to eat nasty things and do all the other physical and mental torture tests required of the contestants. He collects $1 million for his troubles. Cochran also competed in season 24 in 2011 but did not win.

Meanwhile, the Oakton High School graduate has just finished up his law degree at Harvard. But he tells Dave Seminara in the Fairfax County Times that he’s not sure if he wants to be a lawyer. And that after the bright lights of Hollywood, his return to Oakton is “depressing. I’m a heartthrob on a TV show, but I’m still living at my parents’ house in my childhood bedroom, refreshing message boards and Twitter, and not doing much else.”

Last year, after being voted off in season 24, he told Seminara in The Post that he had received death threats for his actions on Survivor, and was taking time off from Harvard Law to bask in the “fleeting notoriety of being a reality TV star.” He said he tended to get recognized more around Northern Virginia than at Harvard, though he later went back to Harvard and earned his law degree. Now, after a second season of life in the reality TV spotlight, Cochran said, “When I go to Tysons, the people who approach me are over the age of 60 or under the age of 12,” he said. “It’s the very old and the very, very young.”

• An ABA Journal post [19] which reads, in its entirety:

Harvard Law Student Who Wrote Prizewinning Class Paper About 'Survivor' Is Now On the Show – A Harvard law student who’s a huge fan of Survivor has already parlayed his love of the reality television program into a prizewinning paper for a class on the American jury system. Now John Cochran, 24, will have a chance to try out his theories about how such groups work as a participant on the show, reports Comcast’s Xfinity blog in a Q&A with Cochran. Fortunately, an Above the Law post points out, he will have his law degree to fall back on. But in the meantime, he plans to take his television persona to the limit as long as he isn’t voted off the island. “I’m prepared to be as deceptive as I need to be. I’m not going to be deceptive for the sole sake of being deceptive, like Russell [Hantz] telling people he was a firefighter in Hurricane Katrina,” Cochran tells Xfinity. “That didn’t earn him any sympathy, he just seemed to relish lying. I wouldn’t do something like that because I don’t see the purpose. I’d only lie if it forwarded my game.”

All other sources are either the show itself, Hollywood Reporter, someone's Twitter feed, Entertainment Weekly, or Xfinity promotional material. By the way, it's refreshing to see a lawyer who only lies when it profits him, not just for the sheer pleasure of lying. EEng 03:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter are magazines about the entertainment industry, so of course many of the articles about Survivor will come from those types of sources. Also, don't forget the article in the Oakton Patch, a regular news Web site (albeit local). But at any rate, it's going to take more than just one person wanting to delete the article for anything to happen at all. Greggens (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two E.W. sources and one from T.H.R.. One is by the host of the show. One is a press release reading, in its entirety:

Survivor champion John Cochran has followed through on his pledge to become a writer in a big way. The winner of the CBS reality show's most recent season, Survivor: Caramoan -- Fans vs. Favorites, tweeted Thursday that he has landed a gig writing for one of the network's new comedy series.

"I'm thrilled to announce that I'm going to be a writer on the new CBS sitcom 'The Millers' (with Will Arnett, Margo Martindale, and more)!" he wrote. (The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed the news.) The Greg Garcia-created comedy centers on a recently divorced man (Arnett) whose life is complicated when his parents decide to move in with him.

Cochran, who studied law at Harvard, first revealed his plans to forgo becoming a lawyer and instead pursue writing during Survivor's live reunion show, which aired May 12. Afterward, he told THR that his dream "is an abstract aspiration at this point. I've always been a good writer in school. … Maybe I'll write some sort of screenplay, or comedy writing. Then I start thinking, am I really that funny, or am I just deluding myself?"

The two-time competitor is not the first to parlay his Survivor fame into Hollywood gigs. Among others, season one's Colleen Haskell starred with Rob Schneider in 2001's The Animal and later served as an assistant producer on E!'s The Michael Essany Show.

The third is [20]. I leave it to my esteemed fellow editors to judge whether this constitutes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" contemplated by WP:GNG. EEng 00:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Survivor is not the subject of this Wikipedia article; Cochran is. None of these articles referenced were written by Cochran, who incidentally has a life outside of Survivor. Greggens (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The show itself is a WP:PRIMARY source, and is worthless for notability purposes. It's as if you said, "This reality-show contestant must be notable – look at all his appearances in the show!" Oh, wait. That actually is what you're saying. EEng 03:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We usually keep the winners of major "reality TV shows", regardless of their quality. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that that WP:OUTCOMES itself says to Avoid citing this essay at AfD, as that would promote circular reasoning. It may very well be that we usually keep such winners, but that's probably because they usually have GNG-qualifying coverage. If, by "regardless of their quality", you mean regardless of the quality of the article, that's always true, since it's the coverage that exists out in the wild, not the sources actually in the article at the moment, that counts. But no one seems to be able to point to such coverage – in the article or outside it. EEng 03:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latest page update shows many more news sources than before, and these sources do represent a wide array of publications. Greggens (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which ones of these are not press releases, interviews, and duplicates of sources already in the article? Please, just list three sources meeting GNG. EEng 03:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel his role on two season of Survivor (the TV show, not the game) was more notable than TV stars from scripted shows who are obviously kept. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I renew my request that someone list even three sources meeting GNG -- i.e. not not press releases, interviews, TV listings, commentary by the show's host, or episodes of the show itself. EEng 16:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I sense multiple agendas here. There are roughly 50 pages for Survivor contestants not notable for other reasons (I note examples like Jimmy Johnson, who appeared on the show but is notable for his football career). The case for notability here should be WP:NACTOR; despite being reality television, for purposes of notability, Survivor is a popular broadcast television show and not a sporting competition. Cochran had a significant role (as defined by a large fan base or a significant "cult" following) in two seasons of the show and won 1 million dollars in one season; I think that clearly meets NACTOR, especially compared to many of the other pages. http://www.funny115.com/v3/version3.htm is a secondary source on the notability of characters on Survivor within the context of the show. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation for targeted Survivor AfDs would be any people who had an appearance on Survivor and an appearance in a beauty pageant, but were notable for neither *at the level of "episodes of the show itself". Survivor fans definitely care about John Cochran, but they don't care about Ashley Underwood (and being Miss Maine 2009 is not notable either). I'm working to update Template talk:Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants with a full proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The interviews in my opinion have more weight than passing mentions, John I feel passes WP:ENT #2. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent of the subject and have zero notability value. EEng 12:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I change my opinion to Redirect to Survivor: Caramoan. Each survivor contestant though is a separate entity (case by case basis), so going forward I want editors to keep that in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Survivor: Caramoan; not independently notable, so WP:BIO1E applies. None of the other accomplishments convey independent notability. Much of the article is cited to CBS, which is not an independent source. I don't see the depth of coverage here that we'd expect in a stand-alone BLP. Anything useful (a paragraph perhaps) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is John Cochran's page specifically being discussed for deletion? I think it's strange for any reality tv contestants to have wikis, but of Survivor contestants or winners, he's one of the most publicly visible (he returned on the most recent season in an unprecedented twist) and continues to be involved in media, having recently sold a television show to CBS (http://deadline.com/2015/12/john-cochran-survivor-greg-garcia-cbs-bobs-your-uncle-comedy-1201665477/). If you want his removed, why wouldn't you also ask for the deletion of the rest of the Survivor contestants? This seems like a personal focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Televisionary55 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's because I happened to run into it somewhere and realized there are no independent sources. I know nothing about any of those other articles. Cool it with the conspiracy theories. EEng 12:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel (very strongly) that WP:ENT is the right standard here, not WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting the page you're linking -- read the bit at the top (WP:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria): "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". They're rules of thumb. If, in the end, there are no independent sources, or a paucity of them, then there's no notability. That seems to be the case here, since no one will answer my challenger to list three independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage. EEng 18:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel you're even attempting to engage in constructive debate at this point. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll interpret that as an admission that there are no appropriate sources. EEng 19:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance on two seasons of a major broadcast TV show is not in dispute. His having "significant fan support" is not in dispute. His having received over a million dollars in compensation for his appearance on TV shows is not in dispute. He is currently engaged in a career in the entertainment industry. Those facts make a complete case for notability, *without* the three independent sources that you keep asking about. I would note [21] and [22] as secondary sources, you can find a third one yourself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstand the notion of "reliable source". EEng 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not my usual field, but it seems we have articles on the winners of other parts. I do not see wh ythis particular one should be an exception. It makes sense as a criterion, as with people in all fields. (I'm not sure I;d accept this beyond the main series, but that may be my ignorance of the others). DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if somebody wants a test case as to whether all Survivor winners are notable, it should be Natalie White [23]. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a test case. It just is itself. I wish I could say I'm amazed at how far this discussion has drifted from applicable policy, but I'm not -- this happens all the time in specialized corners of the project. EEng 22:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Board of Examinations. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Post Graduate[edit]

National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Post Graduate (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'm pretty sure that an entrance exam for a university course isn't notable - there are, after all, thousands of these worldwide. This one doesn't even appear to be long standing but recieved a bit of news coverage after an issue in 2013. Even so, this is just news coverage and doesn't show notability. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to National Board of Examinations and add the description and bit of news about the court case there. This is indeed not notable on its own. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to National Eligibility and Entrance Test#NEET Postgraduate. A postgraduate equivalent of the Indian medical entrance exam that doesn't really add anything to the main article. For the American version, see MCAT. For the British version, see BMAT/UKCAT. Fuebaey (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above and include the bit of news in the appropriate place of the target article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YES I AM Reality Show[edit]

YES I AM Reality Show (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 evidence that this has any significance or notability. Looks like another YouTube contribution. No evidence of any TV rights and no sources so fails WP:GNG . Despite having a website, searches reveal nothing (not even the web-site)  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "2016 Coming Soon Venue: Will Be Declared" says it all; nothing on the first G-hits for "Bindass" "yes i am", and no suggestions that this is real (not counting the redlink heavy judging cast). Nate • (chatter) 15:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable - if not a hoax - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack reliable sources. I found one source that contained the same kind of promotional language as the article claiming that "The show is one of the India`s biggest reality shows held at Mumbai." That's a bold claim that if true would get considerable media coverage, which has failed to materialize. Mduvekot (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agon Mucolli[edit]

Agon Mucolli (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he plays for Vejle Boldklub, which does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT since the club does not play in a fully professional league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Vinicius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article may show multiple RSes but fail's WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--MKJ6006 (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PE infection[edit]

PE infection (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 a stub with only two sentences and one source. I propose merging with another related article. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too Old To Date[edit]

Too Old To Date (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)

Lack of RS, non notable promo. I am concerned by the rev history, 5 or 6 IPs doing bulk improvment edits, which appear to be socks. L3X1 (distant write) 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are its own website, a press release, and an itunes listing. Not sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources do not seem to be WP:RELIABLE MassiveYR ♠ 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am not finding significant coverage to suggest that an article is warranted.  Gongshow   talk 08:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have been unable to find any significant third party coverage for this topic.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seina Kasugai[edit]

Seina Kasugai (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 needs more sources to demonstrated the notability of Seina Kasugai. Its only source is material from the agency that promotes the actress, which is certainly not independent. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Eddie Blick (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article should be given more time to be built with reliable references. Subject appears to have acted in quite a large number of productions. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per A7. L3X1 (distant write) 01:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did not find anything that would help her meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Knox490 (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seeing as there is no consensus on what to redirect it to and no defense for any of the content, I believe that a wholesale removal of the article is the recommended action for the opinions given Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Xenomorph[edit]

Proto-Xenomorph (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 evidence of and no claim made for notability. No external reliable sources about this fictional creature. LK (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Prometheus (2012 film) as a plot summary that duplicates content in that article. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alien (creature in Alien franchise): I would argue that this is a more appropriate redirect target as there is already a subsection set up for this there. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Alien Morphs in the Alien Franchise - While I don't really see the article as irrelevant, given it's relation to a movie releasing globally on the nineteenth, this article does also suit as a fine redirect if it does get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToxicReap (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given uncontested sources Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Piccadilly Rats[edit]

The Piccadilly Rats (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 notability. Further, the author has stated that he has a connection with the band as their manager, and despite a friendly note from me has refused to declare his COI and has accused me of tampering with that article on my talk page. Suggest deletion of this article, although the band manager (whos also the author of this article, by his own admission) means well, Wikipedia is not the place to publicize your band.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are some source examples. Additional sources are available online. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There needs to be actual discussion for this to be deleted, if there is none, it will probably have to be closed as no consensus. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was about to close this as no consensus due to lack of discussion and be done with it, but as it's just been relisted, I'll make my opinion official. Sources indicate local notability; in my opinion that's good enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine Grant[edit]

Augustine Grant (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 are no reliable sources showing notability. States work with other artist but there is nothing showing this. Reb1981 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article provides no evidence of notability. I haven't tried searching for any, as it's unclear what the usual name of the subject is – "Ray Jacobs", "August Grant", or "Augustine Grant". Maproom (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I incorrectly tagged the page for speedy deletion because it is unsourced and the subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources. I maintain that the page be deleted for this exact reason. Meatsgains (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article does not make a substantial claim of musical notability. It isn't up to the community to find sources for an article that doesn't provide them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of Baahubali characters. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kattappa[edit]

Kattappa (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)

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Baahubali characters, once the list is created. If not, then Baahubali (franchise). --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. -Varmapak ^(talk) 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unnotable film character. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Baahubali characters as that appears to be an appropriate target/place for this character. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no notability outside of the film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Baahubali characters. Though presently the character doesn't appear notable enough for a standalone article but the kind of buzz it has created for the film viewers a redirect would be appropriate. Just check the number of views this page receives. --Skr15081997 (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion split between "keep" and "redirect". (non-admin closure) feminist 01:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Diamond[edit]

Jason Diamond (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)

A plastic surgeon that generates a lot of publicity due to prior participation in a TV show. Two AfDs closed as no consensus.

I've reviewed the sources presented at the AfD and I do not find the coverage substantial to warrant an encyclopedia entry. Many are based on self-promotional interviews, as in:

• ""For that week, I literally had people waiting until 2am for a consultation. The waiting room was filled 20 people-deep all day long," he recalls."

I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability does not go away with time. Two previous AFDs left it as a keep, so a third is not needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note -- both the 2014 & 2016 AfDs closed as "No consensus", not as a "Keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Maier-Schwartz, Sagit (2013-05-29). "Bringing Beverly Hills Cosmetic Surgery to the Middle East". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

     The article notes:

     Dr. Jason Diamond wasn't aware that his E! reality TV series Dr. 90210 was being aired on the other side of the planet. That is, until patients began arriving at his Beverly Hills office from all different parts of the Middle East. A facial specialist, Diamond was one of a group of prominent plastic surgeons featured on the show from 2005 through 2008. His new clientele included members of some of the most powerful and wealthiest Arab families in the world, including royalty from different countries in the region. They all wanted him to perform plastic surgery.

     Diamond treated these patients in the United States initially. Over time, though, they began to ask if he'd be willing to travel to provide his services for them and their families at home. Eventually he decided to give it a shot. It took a year to get his license there and to settle on a medical facility where he could operate, but he eventually settled at The American British Surgical and Medical Centre in Dubai, founded by British plastic surgeon Mendy Kahn.

  2. Snead, Elizabeth (2013-07-26). "Why Hollywood's Plastic Surgeons Decamped to Dubai". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

     The article notes:

     Dr. 90210 began titillating American viewers in 2004 with its salacious, sometimes gruesome look at the physical transformations of Beverly Hills' beauty-obsessed denizens through breast implants, reductions, face-lifts, rhinoplasties, liposuction and whitened smiles. Its tagline: "If you weren't born with it, buy it."

     After the E! show went dark in the U.S. in 2008, it continued to air in 22 other countries, including the United Arab Emirates. As a result, its stars have become hugely in-demand surgeons, with all of the attendant hoopla -- and additional business -- that comes with fame. "Anyone who has any kind of media exposure here is considered an A-list celebrity, not just a reality TV asshole," says Jason Diamond, Dr. 90210's former facial expert. He also is the ringleader of a 90210 plastic-surgeon posse that is part of a lucrative partnership with the American British Surgical & Medical Centre, a facility that brings U.S. and U.K. doctors to the Middle East, located on Abu Bakr Al Siddique Road in Dubai's Deira district.

     After being approached by the ABSAMC, Diamond, who specializes in noses and face-lifts, brought in other former 90210 docs including Kevin Sands, the Kardashians' family dentist who also has created winning grins for Charlie Sheen, Miley Cyrus, Kanye West, Emma Stone, Robert Downey Jr. and Britney Spears.

  3. Carrington, Daisy (2014-09-05). "Dubai, the world's plastic surgery hub". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

     The article notes:

     Dr. Jason Diamond knows what it's like to be sought after. The Beverly Hills plastic surgeon -- first made famous by reality show "Dr. 90210" -- has operated on a range of A-list celebrities (though he declines to name them). Yet even he was unprepared for the clamor that met him when he first visited Dubai in what was meant to be a one-time gig as a guest surgeon.

     "For that week, I literally had people waiting until 2am for a consultation. The waiting room was filled 20 people-deep all day long," he recalls.

     That was in 2009. Since, Diamond has returned to the city every two to three months as part of a partnership with the American British Surgical and Medical Centre. Over the years, he has enlisted the Who's Who of Beverly Hills surgeons to join him at the practice.

  4. Corwin, Tom (2008-04-27). "'Dr. 90210' star sees job changing". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

     This article quotes Diamond extensively.

  5. Zain, Asma Ali (2010-10-27). "Celebrity plastic surgeon to start practice in Dubai". Khaleej Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.

     The article notes:

     A renowned plastic surgeon and reality TV star from the famous ‘Dr 90210’ show, Dr Jason Diamond, has chosen Dubai as his first overseas destination upon huge demand.

     The plastic surgeon, who currently practises in Beverly Hills and says he has treated Arab royalty, is expected to complete his licensing formalities in Dubai by next week and start practising at the American British Surgical and Medical Centre by November.

     ...

     Dr Jason’s stay in Dubai each month will depend on the number of procedures he is performing for duration of 10 days after the last patient has been operated upon.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jason Diamond to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A California plastic surgeon can be a V.I.P., can have revenues bigger than some countries, is economically, socially, entertainmently and otherwise significant. A Beverly Hills one is even more important. And they had a TV show! Keep. And per Graeme Bartlett, keep. And per Cunard, keep. --doncram 05:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete just another semi-celebrity doctor. This is just an advertisement, not a NPOV WP article. And it only can be advertisement b/c there are insufficient independent RS with significant discussion of this person. Yes a lot of surgeons are rich. Doesn't make them notable. Very strange arguments being made here. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provided are reliable and verifiable and provide the type of broad coverage that establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ping participants of the prior AfDs: @Johnpacklambert, DGG, JamesBWatson, Bearian, Green Cardamom, Alansohn, SwisterTwister, Unscintillating, Lemongirl942, and Bonadea: to help reach a consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially advertising. NOT ADVOCACY is a mouch more basic criterion than problems about notability--if it's advertising ,we shouldn't even be considering it. The sources are also advertising, as the quotes from them above makes obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and no sources have been provided to demonstrate that The Atlantic, The Hollywood Reporter, or CNN are publishing advertising about Jason Diamond.

  Cunard (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we judge the reliability of sources by examining them. using our judgment. It's not like writing an article, that needs references. If the Atlantic writes an advertorial, like the one here, judge what it is by reading it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dr. 90210. All notability is related to his appearance on the show, and I agree everything else appears to be advertorial. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Claims of advocacy is an opinion I can't understand. The article has been written by and gone over by many veteran editors with no connection to the doctor. No one here is advertising for or on behalf of the doctor. Nor is there evidence the sources themselves are not independent. -- GreenC 15:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of all the prior keep arguments which are better than the delete !votes. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dr. 90210. While sources have been found, they all stem from the show. All 5 of the above examples deal with his relation to the tv show, absent that relationship, he gets written about in zero of those articles. Without the show, he has no independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The sources do not stem from the TV show Dr. 90210, which ran from 2004 to 2008. Four articles cited above were published in 2010, 2013, 2013, and 2014. The articles stem from his work as a plastic surgeon in the Middle East in Dubai. The articles discuss how he previously appeared on the TV show.

  That the articles were published years after the TV show ended and are focused on his plastic surgeon work in Dubai indicates that it would not editorially make sense to redirect his article to Dr. 90210, which per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight would be unable to cover his Dubai work.

  Cunard (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dr. 90210 or Delete - Onel5969 really nailed it, he has no SIGNIFICANT coverage outside of that show. The rest is just self-promotion and brief mentions. LAroboGuy (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jillian Clare#Biography. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To The Beat![edit]

To The Beat! (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)

Seems to fail WP:NMOVIE. The only independent source I can find is the linked MTV article, which mentions it in passing. A Google search doesn't bring anything else up. bojo | talk 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that you have not checked the page again....there are now four independent articles, two of which are solely about the film. I did a search as well on google and all you have to do is add "film 2017" in your search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.36.44 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It looks like this film is still in production, given the posts on their Facebook page. This could probably redirect to Jillian_Clare#Biography, after a sentence or two is added about her directing this film, but it doesn't seem to be ready for Wikipedia just yet. The sources on the page are OK, but not in depth enough to really show enough notability to pass WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (temporarily) to Jillian_Clare. I did some work on the original article to bring in more into line with MOS:FILM but it appears simply too soon for a separate article. Facts in the article are verifiable, but in it lacking enough coverage WP:NF is failed (for now). Allow a return once we have more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Dinker[edit]

Singer Dinker (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 person. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if the subject is non-notable in your opinion CAPTAIN RAJU, why not nominate for speedy deletion via A7? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete purely promotional article (and possible autobiography) for a person that has neither sources nor search results to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Hogg[edit]

Kris Hogg (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Pediaorg (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage Dlohcierekim 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Routine sports coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and none of his hockey accomplishments meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tatum Langton[edit]

Tatum Langton (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 actress Mjbmr (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please see my note at another AfD started by this user. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR; roles are all minor. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Despite a few keep-!votes, consensus is clear that this disambig page is not only unnecessary but might potentially be problematic as well. A hatnote can serve the same purpose and if another Banco de Ponce article is created and the disambig page needed again, recreating it is not a problem. Regards SoWhy 12:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banco de Ponce (disambiguation)[edit]

Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:2DABS. Orphan. Primary topic links to other entry in a hatnote. This is a non-exceptional orphan 2DABS page (of which there are very many) but is at AfD as a test case. Such pages are often PRODed, and then deleted by admins citing WP:G6. user:Doncram (a long-standing and IMO a respected editor) has declined the PROD and put a "Do not delete" notice on the Talk page (as the user has done on other non-exceptional 2DABS pages). I PRODed the page because WP:2DABS says the page "may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page". The PROD was independently seconded by user:Boleyn. Template:Only two dabs had been applied by user:Tavix in September 2016 so I judge it unlikely that there are other ambiguous topics (I have looked and found none). This page should be deleted under current guidance, and then either WP:2DABS guidance needs to be reinforced or changed: probably no-one wants AfD entries for declined PRODs for orphan 2DABs pages. (There was a lengthy, inconclusive, discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for notifying me and for linking to the past proposal (which got archived rather than closed). The disambiguation page is an orphan, as most are; disambiguation pages should mostly not have inbound links (an exception being from "See also" of other dab pages). About this and other 2-item disambiguation pages, and where hatnotes between the two articles exist, in my opinion there need not be any link to the disambiguation page from the articles (perhaps that requires a change in bureaucratic policy, i am not sure). If/when sufficient more items get added to the disambiguation page (and here I have the impression in this case that there exist other Banco de Ponce branches which can be listed in the future possibly) so that hatnotes between the pages become unwieldy, only then does the disambiguation page get linked from any non-disambiguation mainspace article. There's no cost to readers; they pretty much cannot find their way to the disambiguation page. However it would be linked from "See also" at, say, "Banco de Pence (disambiguation)" if such existed, and the like. Keeping the disambiguation page hurts no one and has us further developed. Its Talk page and edit history keep the record of debates about whether certain items are partial matches or not, and about redlink topics and so on, and about AFDs about the disambiguation page. If the disambiguation page is deleted there is no gain, and some cost (on a good percentage of the cases) where the disambiguation page is recreated in the future. If this one happens to be a low traffic topic where few I.P. editors are coming and adding partial matches or redlinks or whatever, great, but the value of keeping the disambiguation page is higher the more churn there has been. Fight forgetting boring info about what disambiguation is needed, or possibly needed if only something else happens like a redlink being created in context in some article per requirement of wp:DABRL. Fight churn, which turns off prospective and experienced editors. Fight against fights to delete stuff for no purpose! --doncram 05:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:2DABS. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect, plausible search term for anyone who doesn't know how many notable entities there are called "Banco de Ponce". No need to create WP:Linkrot Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Banco_Crédito_y_Ahorro_Ponceño Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per TWODABS. I strongly disagree with Doncram – we should not keep garbage around just because there might be some future use for it; either demonstrate now that there are other Bancos de Ponce worth disambiguating, or lose it. I can understand extreme inclusionism of encyclopedic material, but not keeping around useless utility pages like this one – there is a reader inconvenience and maintenance cost (lot of it has already been wasted on prods and this Afd). No such user (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The reader inconvenience and maintenance cost being what exactly? No-body forced anyone to prod or afd this article, it was sitting there being slightly useful quite happily. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TWODABS. Any user typing Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) into the search box will necessarily, during that process, type in Banco de Ponce and thereupon will see that Banco de Ponce and Banco de Ponce (building) are both articles. Since there is nothing else to disambiguate, the disambiguation page doesn't serve any necessary purpose. WP:NOHARM is on its own hardly a compelling argument to keep or to delete a page. Cnilep (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No. That's just wrong, I just tried it. Anyway not everyone has Javascript enabled, and the search box is not the only navigation method in the world. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not only unnecessary, but also potentially damaging. If another editor creates Banco de Ponce (Ambridge), they are likely to see the hatnote at Banco de Ponce and add their new article to that hatnote. The orphan dab page then becomes incomplete, and misleading to anyone who finds it. If, on the other hand, they find the dab page first, they will add their new article to it and not to the hatnote at the primary topic, which then becomes unhelpfully incomplete. Either way leads to problems for the reader. So a redundant dab page like this is a negative. Redirect it to the primary topic, or just delete. If a third (perhaps) or fourth (definitely) ambiguous topic appears, the dab page can easily be reconstructed and the hatnote on the primary topic amended accordingly. PamD 08:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would anyone create Banco de Ponce (Ambridge) ? is it a thing? should we be imagining it's a thing? And if you think "redirect to the primary topic" is acceptable why is your vote plain "delete"? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]