Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neha Thakar (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 artist.I de-prodded it myself per User talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Neha Thakar. Winged Blades Godric 15:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Per source searches, the depth of coverage about the subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC at this time, and not finding evidence of WP:ARTIST being met. The subject has received some coverage, such as this and this mention in Hindustan Times and two short paragraphs of coverage in this Indian Express article, but not finding much else. If additional sources are found, feel free to ping me to this discussion. North America1000 02:38, 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) 22:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- MyPustak (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 is not suitable and do not adhere to various Wikipedia policies. It should be deleted. Press coverage is not substantial. Light2021 (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Having read the exchanges between User:Grayfell and User:Gelato7311 on the article Talk page and also sought other sources using the Wikiproject India search tool, I am not seeing anything better than the usual start-up coverage. (Nor - noting the frequent updates to the site's Alexa ranking in the article - does a position around 24,000th in the site's own market indicate more.) Moving to draft could be an option, but perhaps only if there was a realistic prospect of solid evidence of notability being attained in the near future, as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, but nothing indicates that to be likely. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 25 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.
- Very unfortunate to see that how a team full on non-hindi (Hindi is a language of 260 million Native speakers) people decided that hindi articles have no significant coverage for MyPustak. Anyways, It was my first attempt on Wikipedia and I wrote about a genuine organization with all possible information I could gather from internet. Accepting this deletion as I have no choice. --Gelato7311 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Great Malts of Scotland
[edit]
- The Last Great Malts of Scotland (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 advertising campaign. Google does turn up some other citations - but if offered this case of malts as a freebie, I would certainly have made an enthusiastic write-up or two. They would not, however, have amounted to WP:INDEPENDENT coverage. Narky Blert (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - there's not one Islay malt in that package - I wonder why not? That island has eight distilleries. Could it be because Bacardi owns none of them? Narky Blert (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 25 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PizzaLuvver (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has survived 7 nominations already; anyone remember the most recent of these?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The editor is bringing several articles to Afd that have survived several previous discussions, with no indication whether he's even aware. If he is, if she's intentionally going after such articles and bringing them here without properly formatting his Afds to conceal the many past keep closes, that's disruptive editing. I'm assuming it's accidental. Which amounts to still being disruptive if it continues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think the template will link to more than five past AfDs, but here are the fourth and seventh discussions of Girlfriend, from 2006 and 2008. The fifth and sixth were each within two months of the fourth, and both closed as "speedy keep". There seems to be only one previous nomination of Boyfriend, in 2004.
- Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 25 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, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endsville (band) (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've been unable to find any reviews or feature articles about this band or its one album. I have also tagged the article about the lead singer Keith Jolie. If that one is kept, this article should be merged into it; otherwise, it should be deleted unless another editor has more success in finding reliable sources to reference. The CBC link is a user-created profile, not an interview or a review. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, in hopes of finding something to support WP:N notability. I found a few mentions of a Calgary band called Endsville, from the 1990s, but based on their location and their lineup it does not appear to be the same band as this one. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For that matter, I suspect that even those sources don't actually point at a band named Endsville. Huevos Rancheros — a band based in, guess where, Calgary, in, guess when, the 1990s — released an album called Endsville in 1993. Which explains my initial "hey, wait, I know that name" reaction to the title of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I actually, quite unexpectedly, was able to find a couple of glancing acknowledgements of this band's existence in a ProQuest search — one WP:ROUTINE concert listing for them playing Lee's Palace in 2007, and a brief namecheck in an article about bassist Morgan Phillips writing a short play for SummerWorks in 2008. But neither of those things confer an WP:NMUSIC pass in and of themselves, and I can't find any other information about them that would. As always, a band is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because they exist; they must actually pass an NMUSIC criterion for something, and be sourceable over WP:GNG for the achievement of that something. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 30 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) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Jolie (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 looked hard to find some media coverage of this singer/songwriter. There is an article in his hometown newspaper that isn't on line, but that's okay. Another newspaper has a couple of lines stating that he performed at a festival. The CBC references are user-created profiles (not working right now because the site is undergoing changes, but they'll be back). Snapd is a magazine that carries event listings, and pages of photos of events with captions - not reviews or detailed reports. The National Archives link proves that his album exists, and was published in Canada, but the archives takes every such item, not just notable ones. I couldn't find any album or performance reviews, or any interviews or features in magazines. I also couldn't find any news articles or reviews about his band Endsville. I'd be please to withdraw this nomination if I've missed something. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:39, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lorin O'Neil Caccamise
[edit]
- Lorin O'Neil Caccamise (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 currently active figure with this degree of absence from the Google-indexed Web would clearly fall short of WP:GNG. Can anyone find sources that would support a finding of notability? The article gives no indication of any distinction that would lead to meeting WP:BIO or WP:NATHLETE in particular. Largoplazo (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find any citations beyond the single one cited in the article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've asked the author for additional sources. At first glance, it seems like there may have been some information at the US Skating Hall of Fame that has since been removed from their site. The cultural exchange bit seems especially interesting as well, and would surely have gotten some coverage in 1961. I dunno, it feels like there might be something here if sources turn up. No recommendation, just yet. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comemnt I searched the NY Times archives online, and found no mentions. I searched http://proskatinghistoricalfoundation.org/ and they mention the 1961 trip of the Ice capades to Russia, but list no individual performers. Nor is ONeil listed anywhere on that site. DES (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 25 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) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Dennis (designer)
[edit]
- Ian Dennis (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's a relatively common name, so researching is a tad difficult, but I can't find any in-depth sourcing on a designer by this name. Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "I believe good references have been added which support the page". So here we are. Onel5969 TT me 17:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a shame that there isn't very much material to work with. I'm not familiar enough with Ian Dennis other work to decide if we should have an article about him. The only claim to notability is the NT logo, it seems. The source is actually an excerpt from a book Sinclair, Mark (2014-01-01). TM the untold stories behind 29 classic logos. London: Laurence King Publishing. ISBN 9781780676364.. I suppose it could be merged into an article about FHK Henrion (but that would have to focus on the firm, not the person). There's another version of the story here. Additionally, there is the issue with some of the unsourced material, which doesn't appear to be source-able and makes me think that the author, Ianindent may have access to unpublished knowledge and is perhaps associated with Indent Design, as the user name implies. Mduvekot (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete significance unclear beyond NT logo. Perhaps NT logo deserves an article (as the 10th best logo per one source). I wasn't able to find any significant sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems that the only significant work of note is one logo. To my mind, this is not enough to establish criteria for an article on the designer. Seems self-promotional as described above. Netherzone (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ffarquhar (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)
Largely unreferenced fancruft. Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Quasar G t - c 14:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – yeah, that looks like WP:FANCRUFT all right! But definitely insufficiently sourced to establish independent notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comment and nominator's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - with the Fictional locations in Thomas & Friends page. Has the appearance of Fancruft but the page could potentially be verified by The Island of Sodor: Its People, History and Railways (Rev. W. Awdry, 1987) with other places expanded on the suggested page by Sodor Reading between the lines (C.Awdry 2005). Furthermore, there is a WikiProject Thomas which has started where this information could placed within. Other book series have their histories detailed too, note Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. GimliBob (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diversity (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
[edit]
- Diversity (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- Unapologetically Black (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Transgender Affirming (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Intergenerational (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not require a separate article from Black Lives Matter. Cannot be rendered neutral by editing. See Wikipedia is not a web host. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating Unapologetically Black (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) because the same rationale applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating Transgender Affirming (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle) because the same rationale applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! From what I can see, the students involved with this are OK with removing the pages per the remarks here, where AngelicBeaver wrote "You can delete them whenever you like." My only request would be that we could e-mail a copy of the content to the editors involved so that they can show their professor their work. I'm also posting on the class's dashboard page about this and giving a suggestion on an alternative way to incorporate this content (albeit in a different format) in Wikipedia. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Agree that these topics should be discussed within Black Lives Matter rather than as separate articles. However, if retained, the words "Guiding Principle" in the titles should be lower case. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per WP:NOTESSAY. It's hard to see what content could be kept in the main article. Black Lives Matter has a simple list of the guiding principles - perhaps some of them need at least to be defined. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These articles (there appear to be three linked to this AfD) could be repurposed/expanded to Diversity in activism, Trans-inclusive, Unapologetically Black if enough reliable sources can be found, and the concept is not sufficiently covered elsewhere under another name.--Pharos (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree in principle with User:Pharos that the articles may be capable of repurposing, but that would amount to blowing them up and starting over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The Black Lives Matter article has a simple list of the principles and could be augmented with reliably-sourced text on their meaning. With sufficient sources, it could become necessary to create a more specific article such as Guiding principles of the Black Lives Matter movement which could explore different perspectives from inside and outside the movement in line with usual considerations for due weight, reliability of sources, NPOV, etc, and to have a simple summary in the parent article. Unfortunately, the essays here are not the basis for such an article as the task set was inherently non-neutral. I feel sad for the student editors Burgesspfc and AngelicBeaver because they are stuck trying to explore meaning of principles from the movement's perspective (the task set) and when policy requires neutral coverage of perspectives in accord with their weight in sources. Some of the sources used would be useful for an article but the content is not. Essays for tertiary education often require synthesis of information, advocacy / arguing for a perspective, and original ideas and thought, and all of these are inconsistent with encyclopaedic writing. These essays are not the basis for acceptable articles, a blank page would be an easier starting point. If the students want to persist, there is a notable topic here and there are editors who would help, but given this is an assignment and the semester is nearly over, I will not be surprised if this does not occur. It is a shame when instructor-set work on Wikipedia is incompatible with Wikipedia policy, as seems to be the case here, and the Education Program is already planning to look at this case and the Environmental Justice case over summer – so hopefully we will not see cases like this arise again. EdChem (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the pages nominated here are promotion, propaganda, spamcruftisement, you name it (the main BLM page itself suffers from this as well). In a situation like this, a reminder that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just another free content hosting service, is needed. I do not have the patience Seraphimblade demonstrated at User talk:Burgesspfc#April 2017 but I link it here as a fine example of the guidance these students need and are apparently not getting from their own instructor(s). I hope at least some of the students participating in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Texas at San Antonio/Black Lives Matter - Critical Perspectives (Spring 2017) are aware of and following this discussion. – Athaenara ✉ 11:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note as well these pages which were previously deleted ...
- Black Women (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
- Black Villages (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
- Globalism (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
- Collective Value (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
- Empathy (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
- Black Families (Black Lives Matter Guiding Principle)
- ... just to flesh out the context a bit more fully. – Athaenara ✉ 17:00, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Slightly Basic (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)
- Stranger Things (Slightly Basic album) (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 band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for anything, and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. Their albums were self-released on Bandcamp, so the fact that there are two of them does not pass NMUSIC #5 (which requires a major or large-indie label), and the video game soundtrack is for an indie game on Steam, not a notable release that would satisfy NMUSIC #10. And even if either of those claims were accepted as notability, NMUSIC still requires the claim to be reliably sourced to media coverage, and does not confer an exemption from that just because the claim has been asserted -- but the article is sourced only to their own self-published Bandcamp page. I'm also bundling their album, as it makes and sources no credible claim of notability besides existing either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a band automatically gets to have an article just because their own presence on social networking platforms proves that they exist -- certain specific standards of notability and sourceability have to be achieved for an article to become earned, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 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 Speedy deleted as a hoax DES (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DWAO-AM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per Nmedia, upcoming radio stations are not notable. No sources L3X1 (distant write) 15:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G3 The creation of a new clear channel station on AM, in 2017, would be a much bigger deal and have plenty of sources, including the country's licensing authority. Nothing here suggests this is a real station and the original article creator has been blocked. The original station on this frequency was only licensed for 25,000 watts, making it very unlikely a 50,000 watt application would be accepted. Nate • (chatter) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment The linked page, DWAN, has been part of a back-and-forth between socks of Bertrand101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and restoring editors in the last half-year with the same content here. Definitely think we've been had; doing the G3 myself. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Paulie Giganti (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)
Other than a few brushes with the law, and a premature death, the subject is only noted for losing a television cooking competition. Fails WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC) WWGB (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 25 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — kashmiri TALK 11:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allah Dino Khawaja (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 high-ranking police officer in one of Pakistan's provinces. A few press mentions of his name, usually in the context of WP:ROUTINE reporting, but bothing more substantial to help ascertain notability. — kashmiri TALK 13:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly keep, the article is sufficiently referenced, if required more references can be sought from the newspapers or web and it’s about a notable person. Instead of deletion, Please improve it. Jogi 007 (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep my understanding is his role is head of provincial police for a province of Pakistan. I think head of state-level/provincial-level police force is generally an inherently notable position. By comparison, here in Australia heads of state police forces are clearly notable (see e.g. List of Commissioners of New South Wales Police, Template:Chief Commissioners of Victoria Police, etc), and I think the same would apply in other countries with state/provincial polices. Added to that there are plenty of media mentions of him, I think it is a clear keep. SJK (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This last point raised by SJK has convinced me to withdraw the nomination. Closing in a moment. — kashmiri TALK 11:19, 29 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, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50 Years of Doctor Who: Preachrs Podcast Live
[edit]
- 50 Years of Doctor Who: Preachrs Podcast Live (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)
Subtle promotion for Benjamin Maio Mackay. The author, AnActorsFriend, has spent their entire time on Wikipedia promoting Mackay multiple articles as well as creating other promotional articles (e.g. Great Detectives of Old Time Radio Live) and trying to get the Benjamin Maio Mackay article undeleted.
This article is promotional in tone ("The critical reception of all 4 shows was exceptional") and the references are in the majority either websites owned and/or operated by Mackay himself ( preachrspodcast.net, youtube, and facebook) or simply social media event websites (wherevent.com, allevents.in) none of which are WP:RS. One doesn't even mention Mackay (ausdalek.com) Justeditingtoday (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 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 all. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965
[edit]
- List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965 (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)
These articles are arbitrary lists which are definitely indiscriminate collections of information contravening WP:WHIM. A test discussion for one such list in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of parliamentary speakers in the Americas in 1984 resulted in unanimous consensus to delete.
The following pages are being nominated:
- List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1970 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Africa in 1984 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Asia in 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Asia in 1970 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Asia in 1984 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Europe in 1961 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Europe in 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Europe in 1970 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Europe in 1984 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Oceania in 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Oceania in 1970 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in Oceania in 1984 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in the Americas in 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of parliamentary speakers in the Americas in 1970 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let the discussion commence! Amisom (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping. 12:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. As I pointed out in the first discussion, the speaker of a parliament or congress is certainly a noteworthy position within the political structure of each country — but unlike national heads of state and government, it's not a role that involves crossnational collaboration with the speakers of other countries' legislatures. Justin Trudeau has to meet with and work with Theresa May and Angela Merkel and Donald Trump and François Hollande on a fairly regular basis — but Geoff Regan does not have to meet with or work with Paul Ryan or John Bercow or Norbert Lammert. So a cross-national list of the world's legislative speakers is not a thing people need or are looking for, because there's no substantive need to directly compare the incumbencies across national borders. The fact that the nation-specific lists are categorized together in Category:Chairs of lower houses is as much cross-referencing as the topics actually require, because the existence of the positions is all the cross-referencing that the positions have in reality. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wildfire LLC (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)
Three is a claim of significance here, although sourced to a deadlink, it could presumably be found off-line. Therefore I declined the A7 speedy. But it doesn't seem enough to establish notability. This article has been tagged for notability issues since 2011, and has not been improved significantly, beyond removing advertising. Nor could I find any RS establishing notability, or even any independent RS that mentioned the subject, in a quick google search. DES (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC) DES (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 25 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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Harly Wise (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)
Deletion requested via OTRS by individual purporting to be article subject (identity not verified). Please consider WP:NFOOTY and WP:BBLP. No opinion by nominator. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has played in against a fully professional club against another fully professional club in a competitive competition, so meets WP:NFOOTY. As for WP:BBLP, well the only vandalism is from an IP trying to blank the page, presumably they are the individual purporting to be article subject. Can't see why they would want it deleted, though I guess it would be even stranger if someone was pretending to be the subject and trying to get it removed.--EchetusXe 10:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - player passes WP:NFOOTBALL having appeared in an EFL Cup match for Hartlepool, a fully professional side. No obvious reasons apparent why the deletion has been requested. Kosack (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability for footballers is a minumum guidelines. It does not require us to have articles on everyone who played in a fully professional game. With someone of such a low notability, privacy concerns should win the day and we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:NFOOTBALL, no reasons given for deletion request. Re: John Pack Lambert's comment above, I might agree if the OTRS identity was verified (you are given the opportunity to verify your identity when you contact OTRS). Without a confirmed identity, the filer might be Harly Wise or it might be someone wanting to vandalize Wikipedia by nuking the Harly Wise article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: - agree, unless the OTRS is verified. We've got enough people who do odd things for motives we don't understand. The IP who was trying to blank this article the other day geolocates to western London - so might be. But who knows. Nfitz (talk) 16:03, 30 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, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Existential risk from artificial ignorance
[edit]
- Existential risk from artificial ignorance (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 topic of this article is essentially redundant with existential risk from artificial general intelligence. There is no concept of 'artificial ignorance' that is covered as per WP:GNG, nor have I personally ever heard the term outside of the comic series and the blog post linked in the article, neither of which provide any sort of clear explanation or discussion or notability. The other sources in the article refer to fairly disparate ideas, e.g. cybersecurity, environmental disasters, bots, superintelligence, and so on, which are presented as all part of a general concept of 'artificial ignorance' when the sources do not support such an aggregation or idea. So it's effectively original research. Nothing worth merging either, IMO. K.Bog 04:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A better article already exists, as noted in nomination. "Artificial Ignorance" as a term stems from unreliable sources such as the citations to a webcomic and a Hindu's blog. ValarianB (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A superior article already exists, as mentioned in the AfD nomination. The concept of "Artificial Ignorance" is not supported by reliable sources. desmay (talk) 23:09, 25 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 as WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Michael (TV series)
[edit]
- Michael (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a TV series, which consists of nothing but an episode list with no actual article body, and which has been flagged as a possible WP:HOAX. It doesn't google, but I'll be fair and acknowledge that the title "Michael" is awfully generic and could simply disappear behind a lot of other things (for instance, even if this does exist Google's geolocated searching would steer me as a Canadian toward Michael: Tuesdays and Thursdays instead of this...and hell, even Family Ties could overpower it just because that show had two actors named Michael in its cast.) It also doesn't help that all the names listed in the article (director Michael Thomas, writer Alex Flanders, guest stars Augusta Popova and Debby Ripley) link to dab pages rather than articles about writers or actors or directors. So I'm definitely getting a hint of bull excrement here, but not solid enough to speedy it without a second opinion. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The fact that this article about a TV series fails to mention what country the show is from, what network airs it, or the names of any of the principal cast members leads me to think that this show exists only in the mind of the article's creator. I'm thinking it's a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete my searching came up with nothing when I used the names of episodes, so I don't think it is even a YouTube series. The past form by this writer has also been similar fabricated episode lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing at all on the unique names Oleg Chumack, Victor Countryman, or Rita Zhadan. And the blue links go to first names only. Nothing can be verified. MB 05:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As probable hoax. We should look into what else the creator got into here. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Definitely made-up! Could not find a single shred of evidence to support either the show or the depicted plots. TopCipher (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like everyone else, I tried to find references to this but failed (though the extremely common title doesn't help). However all the links are to dab pages or generic articles about names, and obvious details like where the show was broadcast are omitted. Additionally, every one of this editor's contributions seem to have been reverted or speedy deleted (see his contribution history and talk page). Put together, these things lead me to conclude that it's a hoax. Neiltonks (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, y'all. After investigating the creator's deleted contributions more carefully (something which hadn't occurred to me to do yesterday), there's a much more solid case for speedying as a hoax — the past "shows" typically included fake network information ("YBC" or "Monday's Channel"), along with repetition of some of the same actor and crew names present here (Oleg Chumack, Victor Countryman and Michael Thomas recurred most commonly.) So I'm comfortable that there's now enough evidence to withdraw the discussion (we don't need seven more days of WP:SNOW) and just speedy this as a confirmed WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Staffan Lindeberg (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 a notable person Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lindeberg's death last year caused a number of obituaries, both internationally and locally in Sweden. I'm posting links to sample of them here, hoping they might be useful for determining his notability. The first three links are in English, the remaining in Swedish. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] /FredrikT (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first four are blog postings from people in the paleo community. the 2nd two are from the local paper; the first is kind of obituary-y while the second is more a blog posting reminisce. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The fourth link is hardly just to some individual within the paleo community. It's an article in an online magazine about diabetes, edited by a physician and teacher at the university hospital of the University of Gothenburg. /FredrikT (talk) 12:08, 16 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, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Geotech portfolio (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 GNG. Apparently the creator wants to write an article about one particular geotechnical sample and how it will be analyzed. I don't know why the article is titled "Geotechnical Portfolio" but from the header "James Huff - FGCU - Geothechnical Engineering 1 - Dr. Kunberger - CRN10385" this appears to be a school lab report or paper for the Geotechnical Engineering 1 course at Florida Gulf Coast University. We don't need the specifics of this particular sample, and anything else is already covered in articles such as Geotechnical engineering and Soil mechanics Meters (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If this particular sample happened to have been of critical importance in some major civil engineering case, and there were reliable sources discussing the case and this sample's importance then I could see this being of interest to Wikipedia. Even then it would almost certainly just be an inclusion in the article about the case rather than a stand-along article about the sample. As it is, it is WP:OR about a trivial sample, and probably someone's schoolwork. Meters (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 25 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, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Corey Marshall (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 an actor, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. His "most notable for" role is a voice performance in a video game series, and all his listed film and television roles are minor ones -- and there are zero reliable sources being provided here, as the only two references present are a Kickstarter and a podcast. As always, an actor does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because roles are listed -- every actor in existence would get an article if all you had to do was list acting roles -- it takes reliable sources to demonstrate that something noteworthy happened as a result of those roles, such as "he became a famous movie star" or "he won an Oscar". Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 25 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, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mikel Gerle (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)
Advertorially tinged WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former holder of a Mr. Leather title. This is not a notability claim that guarantees an automatic presumption of notability just because the person exists -- of all the past International Mr. Leather titleholders since 1979, just two others actually have Wikipedia articles, and they both have other notability claims much more substantive than IML alone. And for sourcing, all we have here is one primary source and one Q&A interview on a podcast -- which means we have zero sources that actually count toward passage of WP:GNG. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username matches the name of the subject's husband given in the article body. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Maruthoor (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:GNG. All references are from the self published family websites. Searching provides a lot of references for places called 'Maruthoor' which are in no way related to the family. The history of Saint Thomas Christians is provided in the beginning, but notability is not inherited, and being a member of a notable group does not confer any automatic notability to the family. Jupitus Smart 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do agree the article is written in a more concise way than the one on Peralummoottil family, the fact that it does not have any WP:RS acts against its favour. All the sources mentioned in the article are from the family website. The history therein is sourced from hearsay which over the years gets distorted to a point where the history is just aggrandisement. If the author can provide reliable sources which indicate that the family is notable, then I would not mind withdrawing my nomination, but till then I think it should be a delete. Jupitus Smart 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 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) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan Oris (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 musician, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sourcing, The noability claim here basically amounts to "he exists", and the referencing depends on Spotify, iTunes and his own social networking profiles rather than reliable source coverage in media. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a musician gets an article just because he exists -- one or more specific achievements which satisfy WP:NMUSIC have to be shown, and reliable source coverage in media has to be present to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:32, 10 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, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
National Migraine Centre
[edit]
- National Migraine 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)
Does not appear to be notable. One of the refs used is an SEO agency http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/17413 Hum... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I image that the accounts that created the page are related to the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Not a WIkipedia article but rather an advertising brochure. Almost perfect example of bad, promotional "article". Thanks to nom for flagging it. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete though I did see "any practioner could tell you this" quotes from the center, I do not see significant, meaningful coverage of the center. Dlohcierekim 18:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kyls Burtland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be insufficiently notable for a biographical article about a musician. The claims made are fairly minor and some of the references given are not even relevant or not even RS. The article seems to be trying (not necessarily in any bad faith) to inherit notability from other things with which she has some, but not a very significant, connection. Google News shows a few passing mentions but nothing that constitutes significant coverage by reliable sources. Maybe in a few years time this could change but for now it seems too soon for an article. DanielRigal (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passess WP:MUSICBIO in criteria 8, 9 and 10. as follows.
Criteria 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award - Has been twice-nominated for the APRA Screen Music Awards [1], the largest Screen Music Awards in Australia run by Australasian Performing Right Association.
Criteria 9. 'Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition'. Has twice won 'Songwriter of the Year' via Australia's National Song Competition run by the A.S.A - Includes multiple wins in multiple categories in 1998 and 2002 [2], as well as 'Songwriter of the Year', the overall category [3].
Criteria 10. '''Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, etc.''' - Has composed and performed the main theme music and underscore for numerous multi-season Australian tv Series on Network tv, (some with a viewership over a million, high ratings for Australia) [4] [5], some of these themes received nominations for 'Best Theme' including; Here Come the Habibs commissioned by Channel 9 Australia [6]; and Destination Scandinavia for SBS Network, nominated for Best Theme at the 2016 Asian Television Awards [7].
Also passes Criteria 2. of 'Others' in WP:MUSICBIO. Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre, (that of film music) ie Has composed multiple recognisable theme songs (the key identifiable melody) for widely-watched network TV series as mentioned above. [8].
- NB. the Article could definitely be better structured and edited. Author's notes and kind regards. HeavenlyAntennas
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Allowing early commenters to assess new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 00:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Carlo DeMaria, Jr. (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 minor politician lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Everett MA, pop 41K, is not large enough to guarantee its mayors an automatic NPOL pass just for being mayors — but this is not properly sourced well enough to get over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local politicians, as its only reference is his own primary source profile on the city's own website. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This page is a work in progress, with new information constantly being added. Since the previous post was made, there have been multiple new websites added and other secondry sources. Please allow time for the article to actually develop.
- Get him over WP:GNG and then we'll start talking. But the onus is on you to make sure the article is in a keepable state the moment you click save on it the first time, and is not entitled to any special consideration of needing "time to develop". You can "develop" it as a sandbox page in draftspace or userspace if needed — but if it's in mainspace today, then it has to already meet mainspace standards and requirements today and gets no special exemptions from policy. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete This article is developing with a horrible, non discering use of sources. Facebook is not a reliable source, and should almost never be used at all. The city's own website probably can be used, but cannot add towards notability. Boston Globe is a reliable source, except its coverage of who is running for mayor in cities in its circulation area is routine, and not enough to show notability. Nothing shows DeMaria is more notable than any other small city mayor, and mayors of cities with less than 100,000 are not default notable, unless the city is a truly significant regional center. I am not sure that 100,000 is even a good minimum cut off, and this rule at best only applies to strong mayors. My city has over 100,000, lots of major manufacturing facilities and could be said to be a regional commerce center, attracting people from well beyond the borders for shopping, yet our last mayor's article was deleted, mainly because as a weak mayor he was just a city council member designated as the council president, so he had to pass the much higher hurdles for council member notability. The sources on DeMaria do not show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article also used the subjects own website, which is not adding to notability, a blog post, not adding to notability, and articles about allegations brought against the subject by subordinates. Those do not really rise above the not news guidelines. Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone who is mentioned in the news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Johnpacklambert nails it above. no inherent nobility. just another mayor of yet another small city. no more than routine coverage-- lacks significance. the added sources do not rise above the bar. the most significant coverage is salacious, and this is not "rogue's gallery" or a "annals of crime". Dlohcierekim 18:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.