The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nitasha Sharma[edit]

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

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

Delete: copy/pasted resume. Quis separabit? 23:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BIO1E. Her book Hop Hop Desis has received a reasonable number of reliably published academic reviews [1] [2] [3] [4]. One more like that and I would probably change my opinion, but I think just one notable book and no other evidence of notability is not enough, and the reviews don't help support the actual content of the article. I'm also not particularly swayed by the minor awards and accolades listed in the article; none rises to the level of WP:PROF#C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only achievment appears to be one well-received book. WP:Too soon now but that may change. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete fails WP:PROF.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Fails WP:BPL, WP:GNG, Though some reliable academic references found, doesn't meet notability. WP:Too soon to create an article about Sharma --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple non trivial reviews & decent library holdings. Sample reviews:

• Hip Hop Desis: South Asian Americans, Blackness, and a Global Race Consciousness. By Scarimbolo, Justin. Notes, Sep 01, 2011; Vol. 68, No. 1, p. 67-69

• Hip hop desis: South Asian Americans, blackness, and a global race consciousness. By Qureshi, Kaveri. Contemporary South Asia, Jun 01, 2013; Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 186-187

• Hip Hop Desis: South Asian Americans, Blackness, and a Global Race Consciousness by Nitasha Tamar Sharma. By CODRINGTON, RAYMOND. American Ethnologist, Aug 01, 2012; Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 640

Also enough mentions in Google books to indicate that her research has had an impact on the cultural studies in general: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as WP:TOOSOON, does not pass WP:PROF. Given time, impact will very likely make her WP:NOTABLE. But sources are just not there yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 24 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) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Khan (author)[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The most substantive claims here are that he just published his debut book a couple of weeks ago and that he "has been featured on nurdd.com", but the first is sourced entirely to his own self-published website and the book's sales pages on online bookstores like Amazon and Pothi, and nurdd.com is a clickbaity Buzzfeed-type thing, not a reliable source. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "Awarriorofart" and the subject is the "owner" of something called "Thy Warriors O Art". As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a writer is entitled to an article just because he exists; reliable source coverage in media has to support something that actually constitutes a notability claim for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For added bonus, the creator started this in draftspace and then immediately copy-pasted it into mainspace without actually submitting it for AFC review. But that's not how draftspace works. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete yon non-notable creative person, O sysop of yore. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Fails WP:AUTHOR .FITINDIA (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Besides failing WP:AUTHOR it also fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either not independent or not reliable. nurdd.com is a blog and goodreads is an open wiki. The author profiles are written by the authors themselves. Also as the nominator pointed out the username indicates it could very well be promotional. --Rogerx2 (talk) 20:17, 23 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) 22:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud_Minaei[edit]

Masoud_Minaei (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NKICK ShadessKB (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had tagged this article for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed. No evidence of general notability provided in the text of the article and no evidence of having meet the notability requirements of the kickboxing subsection. KDS4444 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers and some routine sports reporting isn't sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 23 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. WP:SNOW joe decker^talk 16:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand finishing[edit]

Hand finishing (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 sources, little context (so it doesn't qualify for CSD) and no structure. ɯɐɔ 💬 22:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I had originally PRODed this article for the same reason, but it was removed by the creator. — Chevvin 22:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTMANUAL and unsourced. freshacconci (✉) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced and hardly understandable. Also reads like a personal essay.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I'm sure an article on this could exist on wiki, but this is not encyclopaedic. Porphyro (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced personal essay (failing WP:NOTESSAY). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:03, 18 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 merge to Milifandom. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Tomlinson[edit]

Abby Tomlinson (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)

Person that is not notable past one event that happened two years ago. The article reads mostly as a CV past outside of this. Propose to redirect to Milifandom, the majority of the non-CV content of the article. Inops (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The suggestion by the nom that Tomlinson is only notable for one event is completely false. She has repeatedly received independent, in-depth media coverage separate to the Milifandom. Tomlinson therefore meets WP:GNG. She has written for national newspapers and appeared on national television. She has continued to receive coverage completely independent of the 2015 general election. As recently as late last year she was appearing in reliable sources. The Observer listen Tomlinson as one of their "Faces of 2015" which published a lengthy interview with her. She appears in several books such as Why the Tories Won: The Inside Story of the 2015 Election and Political Marketing and the 2015 UK General Election amongst others. AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references in the articles are either (1) discussions of "Milifandom" before or immediately after the election or (2) retrospectives in the form of interviews on "Milifandom" -- none of these establish Tomlinson as notable outside of the event. That Huffington Post reference might contend as an indication of notability, given its removal from the event, if it was more than a one off. As far as I can see, it isn't. --Inops (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. In September 2015 Tomlinson was writing for the Daily Mirror. She has been interviewed by Channel Four News on an unrelated issues. AusLondonder (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have articles on other guest web journalists in the Mirror, or other guests on Channel 4 programmes, because of where they appeared? I don't see why this can't just be added as a sentence in the Milifandom article. --Inops (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Milifandom. Seems like ONEEVENT problem is valid. All the coverage of her - and I grant, it is reliable and in-depth otherwise - is from September of 2015, when Milifandom movement gained visibility, and she, as a media-eye-catching high profile activist/founder, got profiled. But that is still ONEVENT/WP:TOOSOON. I suggest a merge to Milifandom where a section on the founders/notable activists would not be out-of-place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Milifandom because we really only have that one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG guideline. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Milifandom. Entries on every person that has a ONEEVENT on any media platform is not scalable for Wikipedia and does not provide meaningful historical data; detailed data concerning persons with little historic significance is not the purpose of Wikipedia, that is the purpose of Facebook. The overall impact of the ONEEVENT will most likely be limited to granting Milifandom a relatively small increase in media exposure for a short while in 2015. If the event’s impact is found to be greater than this, a new article can always be created detailing the event. 07:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Suggest the editors above read WP:NOTAVOTE. The WP:BLP1E issue has been addressed and rejected. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. You may have rejected it, but the other editors and I haven't. Tomlinson is not notable enough outside of her connection to Milifandom to have an article. --Inops (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read WP:BLP1E. BLP1E only applies if all of the following criteria are met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. & 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Those criteria simply are not met. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Milifandom. If her political career ever takes off beyond what is basically a single event then it can always be recreated. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notability proved per above. This fails WP:BLP1E, number 3. It is implausible to suggest that Tomlinson's role in the Millifandom event was non substantial or well documented. How is it that she still writes and appears on TV, but this is not well documented or substantial. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on TV is not a notability claim in and of itself, and neither is writing content for newspapers. A person has to be the subject of media coverage, not a soundbite giver in or the author of coverage of other things, for that "coverage" to count toward notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being on TV being interviewed is being the subject of media coverage. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. If she's talking about herself, then she's making self-published claims — and if she's talking about other things besides herself, then the thing she's talking about, not her, is the subject of that piece. Only one type of coverage is acceptable for demonstrating notability: coverage in which a third party, not herself, is writing or speaking about her in the third person. An interview can only be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been met by stronger sourcing, and cannot count toward the initial meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 24 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. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Țofei[edit]

Adrian Țofei (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 doesn't meet WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:22, 18 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Horvat[edit]

Ivana Horvat (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 doesn't meet WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete the fact that she won the national Croatian award confers some notability, but a lot more sources are needed. Given her nationality, if sources are out there they'd most likely be in another language. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any reliable sources. A couple blogs talk about her engagement to another actor but articles are really about him. I can't find any source to confirm that she won a theater award for "acting, writing and directing". Also, seems to be two Ivana Hovat's floating around the internet and it's not clear who is who. Overall, doesn't seem to meet basic notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (From a native speaker) – she doesn't seem to have received any award. It seems she was noted for her appearance at the 2012 award ceremony [5] but she's not listed among award winners [6]. I haven't dug too deep into sourcing, but I'm leaning delete on what I saw – most of coverage around is tabloid-ey, and revolves around her relationship and marriage rather than around her own acting. No such user (talk) 15:20, 20 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) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albina Kazanzhi[edit]

Albina Kazanzhi (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 subject who took part in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015, an inaugural contest (WP:GNG failed) and placing 5th does not guarantee notability (WP:MUSICBIO - point 9). Wes Wolf ^Talk 21:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need much better sources to justify having an article on an 11-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Nothing found about her notability. Fails Wikipedia:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (music).--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:14, 20 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) 22:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Dabhi[edit]

Talk:Kiran Dabhi (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article in talkspace, which is why I list it here rather than at MFD. It's about a non-notable body-builder, with no reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE Fails even WP:GNG, agree with nominator. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable, independent sources exist Spiderone 11:28, 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 no consensus. The merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page, but so far no consensus has formed in favor of that (or really any) result. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mars race[edit]

Mars race (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 article based on the notion that there is a "real-life space competition" called the Mars race, rather than a casual vernacular usage. Much of the article is speculation based on low grade references - e.g. Virgin Galactic's "interest" in providing a service to Mars comes from a single casual remark by a Virgin executive - there's no evidence of any company policy or activity. Blue Origin "may" be aiming for Mars which "may" give rise to competition. And so on. Speculation, synthesis and original research. Andyjsmith (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not original research since it all comes from the sources. The statements of competition also comes out of the sources, so it isn't synthesis. The speculation comes out of the sources, so it is referenced material. Deletion cannot be based on these rationales, since they are coming out of the references. Deletion should be based on other criteria, not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That the mass media is speculating on a Mars race is evident from the sources. Casual Virgin executive? I suppose the founder of Virgin would be an executive, but not "just" an executive. I wouldn't say that the "Christian Science Monitor" or "Bloomberg" are a low-grade reference, and they are references showing the press is speculating on this topic. This is a business topic, and high quality general news and business news sources are clearly high grade sources. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the author; reasoning provided above -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very messy article (MoS). Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is "messy" but the subject is encyclopedic, then the proper action is cleanup, not deletion. —Lowellian (reply) 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You try that - the "owner" reverts. Anyway, when cleaned up there's nothing left.Andyjsmith (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not the "owner", rather, your edits seemingly are unreasonable with your edit comments. I left some of your edits. Your claims about MarsOne being a scam is seemingly for the deletion of that article, not relevant to this one. Whether something is a "scam" or not is not related to whether it contributes to a competitive environment or not. Whether something has died or not is not relevant to this article either, since they exist in the history of the competitive environment. Inspiration Mars article still exists, but you deleted the content because it is "dead", which does not mean that it never contributed to the competitive environment. Indeed many "dead" companies and "scams" have greatly impacted business environments, so those are clearly impactful. The crash of 1929 was full of scams, and are clearly relevant. A pyramid scheme brought down the economy of Albania. Studebaker is a dead car company, but is highly relevant to the development of the American car industry. So dead and scam are unreasonable rationales left for removing content that The Guardian itself considered part of this competitive environment. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article talks about Inspiration Mars in the present tense. At best it could be described as moribund. It certainly does not play any active role in the "Mars Race". Nor are any of the other "competitors" paying any atttention to MarsOne. Andyjsmith (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article does not speak of it in the current sense. Did you not see the edits after your PROD nomination? In any case, the historical fact of it participating and being a competitive factor in the market is still there, unless you think Wikipedia is a newspaper and the only thing that should be documented is the current state of the market. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This competition between various entities may be in its early stages, but when it has been covered in thousands of media sources, it certainly is not an "invented" topic as the deletion nomination makes it out to be. —Lowellian (reply) 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a "real-life space competition" called the Mars Race. X-prize, yes. Mars Race, no. Absent that hook, this is just a rehash of the other articles about attempts at Mars. . Andyjsmith (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that a competition needs to be formalized as a "sport" with judges/referees that assign points to decide a winner and award a prize in order to exist, which is absurd. There is no formal judging panel awarding prizes in natural selection or economic markets, arenas where competition is omnipresent. A competition is any contest or rivalry between two or more parties, regardless of whether it is formalized as a contest with prizes officially awarded or not, and when such a competition has thousands of hits in media sources reporting on it, then it clearly exists. —Lowellian (reply) 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no official "race" in either the Space Race or Race to the Moon either. It was still a real-life geopolitical space competition. Just as most economic and technological races are competitions that re not formalized into "sports". The stock market is a real-life competition without an X-prize at the end, just profits, gains and losses. Just as the race to most South was a competition between explorers and nations to the South Pole, and the one before was for the North Pole, which was neither formalized nor had a prize, but were still races.

National Geographic: "race to the pole" -- the race to the South Pole which was not formalized and did not have a prize

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also arms race, such as nuclear arms race and the Cold War nuclear arms race. Which are not formalized with prizes at the end. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no "Race to the Moon" article, only "Space Race".

• There was a "Race to the Moon" though, in real-life. Exactly what are all these books talking about then? [7]. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge distinction between "competition" (a mass noun with the sense of rivalry) and "a competition" (a count noun referring to an event). By stating that there is a "real-life competition" you are claiming that the Mars Race falls into the second group, which is obviously nonsense. The Space Race was not "a real-life geopolitical space competition" as you state above, but it was "geopolitical competition" without the indefinite article. The X-Prize was a space competition. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. There is a distinction between the two forms of the word, but it is not the distinction that you are making. Not requiring any formal judges or prizes applies to both forms of the word. Neither (generalized) "competition" nor (specific) "competitions" require any formal judges or prizes. There are no formal judges or prizes in natural selection or economic markets, but species filling the same niche are both "in competition" and "in a competition" with the others, and sellers of the same product in the same area are also both "in competition" and "in a competition" with the others. —Lowellian (reply) 03:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Any content that is compliant with policy is redundant with Exploration of Mars, Human mission to Mars, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nominator and and editor directly above. Any relevant content should be added to the preexisting Human mission to Mars, or elsewhere. This is an unneeded fork that doesn't help navigation, by arbitrarily splitting off or duplicating certain things in a so-called "race" article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is legit - one of the sources is " Are We Losing the Space Race to China?. Space Subcommittee Hearing" - strong source that beats the "casual vernacular usage" argument Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Are we losing the Space Race..." not "Are we losing the Mars Race...". Was Mars even mentioned in the hearing? This is not a "strong source" for the use of the largely invented phrase "Mars race" Andyjsmith (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 39 times. Mars is mentioned 39 times. Space race to Mars has been used by everyone from National Geographic to the Guardian. The space race currently is the space race to Mars - not to be flippant but what do you think it's about? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this article not a rather weak and opinionated fork of existing articles? What does it add that's not already covered better elsewhere? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Space Race correctly or not, seems to be about a historic Cold War conflict between the USSR and USA. This is about a separate issue between China and the United States for Mars. I don't see any other article that covers this. The fact that it needs expansion, does not mean it is not notable. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with Human mission to Mars. --pmj (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to accept Merge. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have undone your bolding of "merge" in my above comment. Cf. WP:AFD's prohibition on conflicting recommendations. --pmj (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per User:Seraphim System and User:Lowellian.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vote also for keep, as per User:Seraphim System and User:Lowellian.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge material into Human mission to Mars. This would make a good conceptual sub-heading in that article; it is too informal to stand on its own.--Elmidae (talk · contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  11:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gait Asymmetry in Hip Osteoarthritis Patients[edit]

Gait Asymmetry in Hip Osteoarthritis Patients (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)

Original research. This appears to be an attempt to publish what should be a journal article at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to hip or osteoarthritis article. Some of this should be verifiable via medical journals, but even if this wasn't mostly OR, I don't think it's notable enough to stand alone. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All references are from scientific journals that have been published. Thanks.Chhuang0906 (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (@White Arabian Filly:)[reply]

• Comment @Chhuang0906: Yes, that is clear. But it appears you have used the available sources to synthesize new conclusions, which is not how Wikipedia is intended to operate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @WikiDan61: Ok, I delete the part that I used the available sources to make the new conclusion. (@WikiDan61:)
• Delete - we are not a free web host for scholars looking to cash in on their research, either financially with grant money or by getting more income via tenure. We are a charity, and to abuse our status under 501(c)(3) is to risk our tax-exempt status. We also do not publish original research ever, and not even synthesis of such. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bearian:this is not original research, nor is it an attempt "cash in " as suggested by the previous comment. It is an effort to summarize a content area for others who may be interested in the same manner as many other Wikipedia pages such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_problem.

• delete This is an effort by someone to create a review article here in WP which is WP:OR in Wikipedia. We summarize secondary sources here; we don't create secondary sources here. This belongs in Wikiversity, not here. 05:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Indonesia. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Kristen 7 BPK Penabur[edit]

SMP Kristen 7 BPK Penabur (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 non-secondary school, with only primary references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of schools in Indonesia and add it to that. Don't see how a redirect to Jakarta would be that useful since the city is massive. The list article makes more sense for this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:15, 9 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) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psych (rapper)[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a rapper, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no evidence of reliable source coverage in media. Pretty much right across the board, the referencing here is to unacceptable primary sources, like his own Facebook and Instagram and Soundcloud accounts, or WP:BLOGS that cannot carry notability -- and the one thing here that's even marginally closer to an acceptable source than anything else is, Buzzfeed, is to the user-generated "community" section of Buzzfeed and not to content written by any actual employee of Buzzfeed. (Which is, obviously, not to say that Buzzfeed could actually carry a GNG claim all by itself at the best of times, but Buzzfeed Community counts for even less than Buzzfeed proper.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which any musician is entitled to have an article just because he exists -- he must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, which verifies passage of a specific notability criterion, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references are not valid according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.--Rogerx2 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the references are from social media sites and self created material fails WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NMUSIC. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:40, 20 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. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 00:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahobiya[edit]

Mahobiya (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 similar main article namely Banaphar is already existing along with the specific articles like Alha and udal. Is this article really needed, contents of which are not supported by Releable Source. MahenSingha (Talk) 20:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is only a one sentence entry lacking any source material. I feel it could be deleted.TH1980 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Mahensingha: Why is this submitted to AfD and not merged straight away, as was discussed and more or less agreed to on the article's talk page? Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are no refs with content to be merged. --Rogerx2 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I believe, article can be kept but need to work and FIXIT. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for utter lack of sources, none on page an google is blank [8] although people with this surname do turn up. This is one of the many AfDs I have seen for brief, unsourced articles on sub-clans in the sub-continent. Certainly we can have articles on small ethnic groups, clans, sub clans, even the Hatfields and the McCoys, but we can only keep such articles if they are well-sourced. Nothing worth merging or redirecting in this unsourced article. In fact, merging is against policy because there are no sources, ergo, no confirmation that the term itself is at all related to any merge target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 26 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Collinson[edit]

Travis Collinson (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)

B GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been presented. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry. Newbie at listing these. Please don't bite. Reason is non-notability and created by account that seems purely commercial in nature. The article is an advertisement. GetSomeUtah (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't read like an advertisement, whether you're right or not about the article creator's intent. He's clearly a notable painter, loosely speaking: whether he is by our definition of the term...? His work is certainly known and exhibited and written about. The weeklies SF Gate and OC Weekly that are on the article aren't bad -- they're not solely devoted to him but they're much more than passing mentions. And I wonder if some of those exhibitions -- we have solo, group, curated, public -- don't combine to meet WP:NARTIST: "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." Combining the coverage that we do have with all his exhibitions, I'd say weak keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Artist seems to be notable as extensively exhibited and covered offline. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, too soon. Artist has shown in two minor regional museums. Not really notable. Netherzone (talk) 22:58, 20 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Colson[edit]

Jeff Colson (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. Commercial in nature. Created by user who has created several of these pages. GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:ARTIST4d at a minimum: is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Probably meets every single other criterion as well, but this should suffice. The promotional nature of the article has no bearing on the notability of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination for deletion is devoid of knowledge of the field of visual art. The Colson brothers have been known and notable for several decades. Netherzone (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment according to the award announcement for his 2012 John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation fellowship, Colson's work is in these permanent collections: Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles; Frederick R. Weisman Museum of Art, California at Pepperdine, University; Samllung Rosenkranz Foundation, Wuppertal, Germany; and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. See here. His work is also in the collection of the California Museum of Photography - see here. Netherzone (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Passes WP:NARTIST, but require to make the article neutral. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I took out extraneous fluff from Solo exhibitions and Group exhibitions, and changed the formatting from resumé style to narrative form. Still needs some inline citations, if anyone else is interested in improving this article. Netherzone (talk) 22:37, 21 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Roy[edit]

Jayanta Roy (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 music composer. I found no sources that provide significant coverage of Roy himself, nor does he seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:COMPOSER. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The below comment was posted by the author on the talk page of this AfD, so I have moved it here. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is significant and should be in wikipedia. Roy has worked with National Award Winning Singer Rupankar Bagchi who is very much famous public figure in West Bengal. He worked with Gopika Goswami who has done playback in many highly popular bengali films such as Jamai 420, Shororipu, Not a Dirty Film, Sathiya. Sundeep Gosswami (who has sung Dil Kyun on Roy's compostion) has worked singer and music director as Sundeep-Surya (previously was known as Sandeep-Surya) duo in Bollywood movies such as Bhindi Baazaar Inc., Blue Mountains (2017 film) and Suraj Jagan, Roop Kumar Rathod, Sadhana Sargam, Tochi Raina have sung on his composition. Roy also worked as painter in Tui Bolle Project ( an Indo- Bangladeshi relationship project) with one of the top artist of Bangladesh Shayan Chowdhury Arnob.Jiami (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jiami: Notability is not inherited. A person who is the subject of an article has to be notable in their own, and I can see no evidence that Jayanta Roy is. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Sir, Roy has been referred several times in Bangladeshi newspapers for Tui Bolle project in many renowned Bangladeshi newspapapers as it can derived from online sources. Tui Bolle project is very much significant in the sense that it has been done to enhance Indo-Bangladesh cultural relations in that atmosphere where Indian music is banned in Bangladesh. Its also a fact of significance/notability for Roy being mentioned in a lot of Bangladeshi National newspapers for that project where other persons in that project (like musicians who played for that and others involved in song production) except composer and lyricist were mentioned nowhere (so far links I have had from internet search).Roy has been covered multiple times in West Bengal state level newspapers and regional ones and also televison channels whose onlie links expire in few days and a number of them don't have online links, so it will remain as a fact of ambiguity from the view of wiki until any user as well as me can't give further online sources and I or any other user can give reference of online links of news coverage in recent future when any online link of his next coverage will generate on net or will be covered in English newspapers whose links don't expire. I have come on wiki to be an wikipidean editor and so I made the article short rather than using any info from the offline newspapers where from I read many about Roy Sir. So, its my request to you is to keep the page making it recommended for improvement following rule of not deleting in case of doubt. Please go for inclusionism. Jiami (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above Notability is not inherited. To have a Wikipedia article, the subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to demonstrate it's notability and the available sources are either unreliable or trivial passing mentions. Nothing I've seen suggests that this person meets GNG and I don't see any indication of passing WP:COMPOSER. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: What I can say about this, the sources are reliable enough. An article can be made for a single event too if the event is significant and there are multiple coverages of event along with the person's role WP:BIO1E. Anyways, I shall agree with any decision you would take. Regards. Jiami (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No notability shown. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Reference 15, 16, 17, 18 show his coverage in significant reliable Bangladeshi Newspapers independent of the subject. Jiami (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jiami (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

@Jiami: Are you serious? As I can read Bangali language a litle bit and with the help of Google translate I found that all sources are about Shayan Chowdhury Arnob and Roy's (জয়ন্ত রায়) name is there becasue he designed the logo for Arnob's song(s) and it reads:

15: Bengali: গানটির লোগোর নকশা করেছেন জয়ন্ত রায়।

16: Bengali: জয়ন্ত রায় গানটির লোগো ডিজাইন করেছেন।

17 and 18: Bengali: ‘তুই বললে’র লোগো ডিজাইন করেছেন জয়ন্ত রায়।.

So can you please explain how it's independent of the subject? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non notable artist, who has merely worked for any notable project., fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:NARTIST and no significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:09, 20 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. Uncontested, see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murtaza Khojami[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a singer and record producer, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no quality reliable sourcing to support it. The only "references" here are his music's buy-it pages on online music stores, not media coverage about him -- and going back further in the history, the only other references that have ever been here at all are a Spotify stream and a Vevo videoclip. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because the presence of his music on iTunes or Spotify proves that he exists; he must be the subject of media coverage, verifying passage of at least one specific NMUSIC criterion, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nominator, no claim of notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:10, 20 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Girkar[edit]

Prashant Girkar (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)

Applied a prod with the reason: Does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. The tag was removed, but the article was not improved in terms of adding content to show notability. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production Manager is totally different category, prashant girkar is main director of film he is not a production manager, i provided some references please go through it. wikibot 18:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an under-developed CV / TNT / unremarkable subject. This content is not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 19 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 redirect to Farnborough, Hampshire#Town centre. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princes Mead Shopping Centre[edit]

Princes Mead Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No claim or indication of notability for this shopping mall. WP:CSD#A7 nomination declined by administrator, so bringing here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Farnborough, Hampshire#Town centre as that is where it is already mentioned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MILL shopping mall with 37 stores. No indication it's notable. MB 04:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an invalid or implausible redirect term, though? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect, but the relevant section isn't even sourced. I wouldn't say the proposed target article has a "subtopic" on this subject per WP:POFR; it is barely useful. I wouldn't create this one myself. MB 14:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Princess Mead shopping centre is part of farnborough's history Mathew James Hall (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article - it is of significant notability and Wikipedia users would be much the poorer for its removal. --92.25.88.162 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @92.25.88.162: That's kind of an WP:ILIKEIT argument: it doesn't speak to why the mall is notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is notable for those interested in the retail make-up of the great town of Farnborough. The fact it may be a more minority pursuit than fishing is neither here nor there. --81.178.191.76 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @81.178.191.76: Its notability does not arise from you saying it is notable. Its notability arises from the existence of significant sources, which have not yet been produced. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 23 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 speedy delete. WP:SNOW, at least four attempts at self promotion, now salted to try to stem his vanity project Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Flesher[edit]

Andrew Flesher (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 Google News search doesn't show much, thus failing to meet GNG. J947^(c) 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails to demonstrate WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Why should we have go through all this for a third time? This contributor's self publicity has be deleted twice already. If he wants to have articles about himself and his business he should request it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Is this not time for any more self created articles about and by Andrew Flesher to be SALTED to prevent this? Aspro (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's already an draft of this article at Draft:Andrew Flesher and looks like it's copy-pasted from the draft. Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi's International[edit]

Ravi's International (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)

Don't quite think this is notable enough. - the only two sites that bring something back from the references in the article is the Bangkok Post article, and the website's alexa listing. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Nothing found in a Google News search. J947^(c) 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 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. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ross George[edit]

Michael Ross George (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)

Apparently does not meet our notability criteria for business people. There were 600 people named in Forbes 30 under 30 in 2017, so that can hardly be seen as a "a well-known and significant award or honor" as understood at WP:ANYBIO. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a run of the mill music exec. We usually delete producers and their ilk unless they have music chops. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 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) 22:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig B. Johnson[edit]

Craig B. Johnson (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 individual does not meet notability criteria. While local politicians are not inherently non-notable, Johnson does not appear to meet the standard set forth. Mpen320 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Elk Grove Village is not large enough that being its mayor would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — if the article had enough substance and enough reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG, then it could still be kept anyway, but it can't claim an automatic keep just because the word "mayor" is involved. But of the sources here, nearly all are stacked onto once breaking his collarbone in a biking accident, and his son being arrested for dangerous driving, so none of them are providing any substance that would aid his notability as a mayor — for that, we would need a lot more than just one source about the political substance of his mayoralty. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Elk Grove Village is not large enough or otherwise important enough to make the mayor default notable, and there are no other claims to notability for this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 19 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 withdrawn. GNG and NACTOR now meet. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Barnett[edit]

Christopher Barnett (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)

BLPPROD removed by an editor saying IMDB is reliable but isn't reliable either per WP:CITEIMDB. Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - IMDB isn't a reliable source, but it can be useful in finding them. It took about four minutes to get an actual source for the award he did win, and it's probably just as easy to find sources for the half dozen other's he's been nominated for. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has won a number of significant awards, the sourcing of the article is being improved. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:13, 19 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Washington[edit]

P. J. Washington (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)

High school basketball player that fails WP:NBASKETBALL. A412 (Talk • C) 18:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has actually gotten quite a bit of press as a high school player and as a result he meets WP:GNG. Examples are here and here and here. 02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 24 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) 22:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Dyer[edit]

Noah Dyer (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 individual is not notable. The individual is only a candidate for public office. Please see here for more detail Mpen320 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dyer received some media attention relating to his "openness about his sex life" however that coverage relates only to his candidacy for office. He fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get articles just for being candidates, but are notable enough for articles only if either (a) they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason independent of their candidacy, or (b) they can be sourced to an extremely broad degree of coverage that shows their candidacy as significantly more notable than the norm for some reason (i.e. the Christine O'Donnell scenario.) But this makes no strong claim of preexisting notability, and the media coverage about his polyamory just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Not quite enough to overcome WP:BLP1E, with the coverage of his sex life and also fails WP:NPOL, but if news coverage counties to be substantial, no evidence of this currently, and meets notability, article could be re-added (see ex. Joe Miller (Alaska politician), Christine O'Donnell). ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 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) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Kuhnhenn[edit]

Martha Kuhnhenn (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 a junior academic who doesn't appear to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:TOOSOON, tiny citation counts on Google scholar mean she does not yet pass WP:PROF#C1 and the article does not indicate any other source of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as far WP:Too soon. 5 cites on GS in a highly cited field when well over 1000 would be expected to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I would suggest waiting for the outcome of the deletion discussion on de.wiki: link. It it's deemed non notable over there, it would be a easy choice. Right now I'm on the fence. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @K.e.coffman: The German discussion has closed as a delete. However, the German Wikipedia appears to use different standards than ours, so even if the outcome were different I don't know what the relevance here would be, unless the Germans somehow turned up different sources than what we have already found, which they didn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 24 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 merge to merritt k.  Sandstein  11:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ASMR) Vin Diesel DMing a Game of D&D Just For You[edit]

(ASMR) Vin Diesel DMing a Game of D&D Just For You (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 game, fails WP:N. All the references are passing mentions, lists, or "this a a thing" type WP:NOTNEWS stories copy-pasted from one another. There is no in depth coverage or critical analysis of the game. Leigh Alexander saying, "my friend made a cool thing" is not enough. - hahnchen 18:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep refs 3, 7, 8 in the existing article are independent nontrivial RSs. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• For quick reference -
  • 3 - https://www.yahoo.com/news/let-vin-diesel-dungeon-master-000002269.html (this is a duplicate of reference 2)
  • 7 - http://boingboing.net/2015/05/27/having-vin-diesel-as-your-dung.html
  • 8 - https://socialmediacollective.org/2015/12/02/17-games-that-showcase-gaming/
    • I reviewed these before I made the nomination. - hahnchen 23:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I disagree with your assessment of these three sources, and find them sufficient to demonstrate notability where you do not. Mind you, I have no problem with editorially merging this somewhere else, but the argument that the article, as it stands now, violates policy and must be prohibited from existing as a standalone article... is uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to hear your take on "Social Media Collective". To me, it looks like a WordPress blog that presents little more than a sentence and a download link... Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Hosted for Microsoft by Wordpress". It's a list, has a mention and a bit of commentary: independent RS, could be more extensive, but certainly counts. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Theres a bit of leeway in defining "significant coverage" but a single sentence on a one-of-17-entry listicle is pretty definitively not "significant coverage". It's pretty much the definition of a "passing mention". Sergecross73 msg me 10:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable game Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jon Kolbert - I'm leaning that way myself, but can you explain why? Stances given without any real reason are usually discounted by the discussion closer. Just saying WP:NOTNOTABLE isn't worth much here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While the fact that this game exists has been mentioned in a couple places, that in itself doesn't make it notable. Nearly all, if not all, of the sources treat it as if "oh, that's neat" and move on. Heck, there's probably quite a few news articles/blog posts floating around about that Redditor who ate a vinyl record milkshake because Kendrick Lamar didn't drop a second album - but that definitely doesn't in itself merit an Wikipedia article on him because he did something out of the ordinary, and neither does this game. As Czar states below, the best solution is just to include it in the game creator's article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for expanding your rationale. I think I prefer Czar's specific approach, but you definitely expanded your stance into something policy-based and helpful. Thanks for that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to merritt k. I started to write a complete source analysis but why bother when there is an article for the game's creator? Write about it there and spin it out summary style only when warranted by the sourcing, which is currently thin. The best sources are Offworld (Boing Boing) and Polygon, neither of which go into enough depth to do justice to this game as its own topic. Nerd Approved (which is not a reliable source) repackages BB. The other sources are either primary to the topic or don't say more than a sentence about the game (passing mentions). Easy merge candidate. czar 05:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Czar. There's enough sourcing to verify basic details, but not write an article accurately depicting the subject. We do have a plausible merge target, plausible search term, and a source to give a basic definition at least, so I think merging is preferrable to outright deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much of it would you keep in the parent article? The appropriate weight for such a lightly covered work seems to me a list entry or at most a 1-2 sentence blurb. That already exists in the article. I don't really see the reasoning for merging what is left, rather than just removing it. - hahnchen 17:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that what exists in the article as of now is sufficient given the weight of the work. Any further expansion isn't really merited in this case. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd keep as much as pertains to the developer from the mentioned Offworld and Polygon sources. czar 02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless I'm glossing over something, Merritt's articles doesn't even define the game other than "a game about caring". I think we could at least add a sentence defining the game a little better than that, right? And as Czar mentioned, neither of the two actual RS sources discussed above (Polygon/Yahoo and Boing Boing) are used in the article. It's not like I'm advocating a special subsection for it or something. Just a better defining sentence or two written according to a third party source or two. Sergecross73 msg me 03:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if there are "two actual RS", then you should be !voting keep, and then having a non-AfD discussion about how to clean up the article, including merging it. WP:DINC Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Jclemens: Merge is listed as an appropriate outcome at WP:Deletion process#Common outcomes. --Izno (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, merge is an acceptable stance at AFD, and nothing at DINC essay says otherwise. Come on, Jclemens, you're talking to a number of experienced editors here, not some newbies. Saying things like that is tantamount to WP:DTTR. We know how AFD works, thank you. Two minor, short sources about a subject is not some sort of obvious, "knock it out of the park, of course this subject is notable" type scenario. It's, quite frankly, teetering on the barest of bare minimums possible. Both sources are very short, and don't provide enough content to write much of an article. There's also a plausible merge target. Don't try to tell me merge isn't a valid choice here. It is. WP:DELETIONPROCESS clearly shows merge as a valid and common outcome at AFD, and WP:MERGE shows that it's a very clean-cut example of WP:MERGEREASON #3. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure, merge is an acceptable outcome... if GNG is not met. GNG is met, and none of NOT is triggered, therefore the right venue for a merge discussion is a talk page, not an AfD. Unless there's a reason articulated at WP:DEL-REASON to be here in the first place, and I contend that there is not, then any AfD outcome other than a closure without action is 'wrong'. Sure, the process has been applied incorrectly and inconsistently for so long by so many people with so many admins going along with it that regulars have come to accept 'merge' as a valid AfD outcome in many, many situations where it was never appropriate. Don't get me wrong, that's a ton better than deleting potentially encyclopedic content; that still doesn't mean it's a policy-compliant process and outcome. DTTR is a poor analogy, but if you think I'm talking down to you or anyone in the debate, you have my sincerest apologies. The fact is, the AfD culture is part of how Wikipedia drives away editors, and by reminding experienced editors that when what we do isn't what we say we should do, there's a problem. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • The whole basis of your argument is extremely shaky to begin with though - the premise that a mere two short sources establish notability is not a commonly held one. Even ignoring the fact that 2 isn't very many, they're also not particularly long, nor do they actually say much of substance about the subject. The rest of your argument is...nothing more than a personal theory - there's a long-running precedent to merge articles like this when they're short on content and sources, again, per WP:MERGEREASON. It's pointless to argue about venue anyways, it's equally likely to be merged at AFD or a merge discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would not have nominated the article if I believed GNG had been met. I clearly do not believe the "this is a thing" style news articles constitute significant coverage. The coverage is on the level, as Kolbert argues above, as the viral reddit vinyl drinking guy. AfD culture rewards effort rather than addressing the subject, had this article been a stub with the same sources, I have no doubt that there would not calls for a merging. - hahnchen 13:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Czar. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. When actually looked at, the sourcing being used is very thin, with most of the linked sources given only passing, one or two sentence mentions of the game. There just isn't enough significant coverage to support an independent article, but since a valid Merge target exists, that seems like the best outcome. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:22, 24 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 speedily deleted by The JPS per CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Raver). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The green raver[edit]

The green raver (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 find no reliable sources online with substantial coverage of this person. One might expect that the story of the eBay sale indicates a pre-existing notability such that someone might actually cough up $14,999—on the third bid!—for the first copy of the album. But take a look at the sources given: (1) the eBay listing itself; (2) Spotify, i.e., social media; and (3) top40-charts-com, but the article is identical to this one, which is expressly a Green Raver press release. And there are virtually no Google hits for "Green Raver" "not for human consumption", and none at all for "sid bostwick" "not for human consumption". So there are no independent sources verifying that this actually happened. Therefore, fails WP:N, and possibly WP:V as well. Largoplazo (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look up 'Green Raver Not For Human Consumption' as suggested, the first and second links on Google are for the album and another article referring to the Ebay site. It's insane to me that you can't look at the Ebay link itself and see the evidence. The Ebay link is literally the second reference I've given. I also provided a link to ANOTHER article. But look at the Ebay link, and EBAY shows the price that the album was sold for. Not sure who could dispute that this actually happened.

Is a similar debate being made about Wu-Tang Clans album which was sold under bizarre pretenses to Martin Shkreli for two million dollars? I doubt it, therefore the argument for deletion is fallacious and based purely on the pretense of assumed credibility.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siditious (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)‎[reply]

Just because something happened, doesn't mean it gets an article on Wikipedia. Ab eBay sale would need coverage in secondary sources to be reported on Wikipedia. The Wu-Tang Clan sale was reported in reliable secondary sources such as this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. Wu-Tang Clan is extremely well known. There isn't any evidence that The Green Raver is particularly well known in the first place, so in the second place one wouldn't expect a Green Raver album to go for the same sort of price that a Wu-Tang Clan album would go for. Showing an eBay listing itself proves nothing, since one could (I'm not at all saying this is what happened, but it could happen, and certainly would explain an apparent anomaly of this sort) stage an auction in which one creates separate eBay logins and "buys" an item from oneself while making it look like an arms-length transaction. That is why the eBay page isn't proof. And even if it makes it look plausible, it doesn't alter the fact that this amazing sale has apparently gained no attention, which means that you have a notability problem whether or not you also have a verifiability problem. Largoplazo (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tui Amar Rani[edit]

Tui Amar Rani (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:NOTFILM FITINDIA (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per A3: That article only contains an infobox and no evidence of notability is present. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DECLINED SPEEDY "this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox." There is sufficient content to see that the subject is a film produced and directed by Pijush Saha from Prince Entertainment P4. Was previously deleted via PROD. Perhaps it can be sourced this time. Let the AfD proceed. Dlohcierekim 10:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An unreleased film and my searches are finding nothing relating to a film of this name. Fails WP:NFF, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable unreleased film Spiderone 11:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFILM. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 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. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 00:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz Lutfi Akbar[edit]

Abdul Aziz Lutfi Akbar (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)

never played in a fully professional league, in 2016 until 2017 he plays in the Indonesia Soccer Championship A and Indonesia Soccer Championship A is not a professional league, competition that replaced the temporarily-suspended Indonesia Super League. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:CAPTAIN RAJU. I've been trying to discuss the status of the Indonesian top league at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#2016 Indonesia Soccer Championship A. If it's the same teams, playing under a different league name, why isn't it fully professional? What about 2017? Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Liga 1 (Indonesia) is considered a professional league. Even though yes it was suspended it has resumed operation now as of this year. The 2017 Liga 1 has just started and there is good indication that he will make his debut soon. He has already appeared in a match for Borneo. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:04, 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. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodrock 'n' Roll[edit]

Bloodrock 'n' Roll (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 an album that does not meet the general notability guidelines or any of the album notability criteria. The article has existed since 2007 with relatively little edit activity. Sjrct (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Ciottone[edit]

Gregory Ciottone (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 created and primarily edited by WP:SPA. Based largely on self-published works, it fails notability as to academics in that reliable, third party sources are few. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not fail notability as to academics. According to the criteria of notability as to academics, only one of the nine listed criteria must be met. Dr. Ciottone meets at least three, all of which are supported by reliable third party sources:

1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources:

This has been met by his textbook, also named in his honor, being cited as "the leading textbook in Disaster Medicine" by the prestigious journal Annals of Emergency Medicine^[1], as well as his over 250 citations on google scholar^[2]

2)The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions:

His textbook being named "the leading textbook in Disaster Medicine" affects every academic medical institution in the world. ^[3]

3) The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: By being named a "medical expert" by CNN and appearing on a number of their national broadcasts, Dr. Ciottone has clearly had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity.^[4]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources do not show coverage that rises to the level of GNG. One text book and a few citations are not enough to pass any academic criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a promotional CV. And what the heck is counter-terrorism medicine? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. SPA-created a few years back and full of WP:OR. EM is not an especially highly-cited branch of medicine, but even so, citations are pretty low for someone to be considered notable in this field. Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 24 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. Notability not credibly established. Even some of the "keep" comments admit the subject is not yet known... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Savetier[edit]

André Savetier (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 subject has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The article is entirely based on primary sources. Mduvekot (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find enough independent coverage to establish notability. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. (The article may also be autobiographical, as the creator also marked Savetier's signature as 'own work'). Mortee (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article is not autobiographic, though I know Savetier personally. He gave me the permission to use the signature. Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia editing and am not accustomed yet to the rules here. But I have to point out that the article is not solely based on primary sources, there is the interview with Flux magazine and the mentioning by AtSeaCompilations. Savetier was also mentioned on Italian television, where they talked about his documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pi3vUN84Ws (from 2:20). Savetier has a relevance in the scene he writes about, therefore, I plead for "keep". Weltengeist (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: i first heard about andre savetier in flux magazine then i found out about his page/blog of which i am an avid reader. as a fan of dark synth i also follow the music he publishes, either on youtube or as a part of a compilation. It is good to see a wiki entry to keep track of all this. Therefore I say keep hsimhsihs (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)— hsimhsihs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Savetier not very known yet but produced good music and has potential, also his genre is not easily covered by press. Tzsagan (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are not enough independent and reliable sources with significant coverage to satisfy notability. Facebook and Youtube should not even be included as references, since they are not reliable sources. Edison (talk) 17:18, 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.  Sandstein  11:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Trendology[edit]

Literary Trendology (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 appears to be original research, with a search for sources discussing "literary trendology" not revealing anything. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this could be transwikied to Wikiversity. I can confirm that no one else uses the term Literary Trendology or anything close. The general topic of trends in literature does appear to be notable, and absent an article here. But the content here does look like original research and so unsuitable to retain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A quite unusually non-notable topic: no hits on Scholar, no hits on JSTOR, even no hits on Gbooks might perhaps be expected; but no hits whatsoever on the web is surprising. A redirect to Pavel Bělíček might be a possibility, except that that author has exactly two cites on Scholar, and that that unreferenced and autobiographical article is also nominated for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 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 keep. Seems like we're generally satisfied with at least some of the new sources that were introduced. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeamCity[edit]

TeamCity (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)