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. Userfication available upon request. Kurykh (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Rutte cabinet[edit]

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

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL; not yet formed (and no guarantee that it will be successfully) Mélencron (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it is likely that a third Rutte cabinet will be created, it is speculation at this point. Wait until it exists. Mduvekot (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy pending events Dlohcierekim 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination (or userfy) – Editør (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There will definitely be a Third Rutte Cabinet as Mark Rutte will be the leader of the largest party in the coalition. As such the cabinet is named after him. 79.77.11.185 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Likely but not definitely. – Editør (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone steps forward and asks to Userfy it. Article creatorUser:Nonomuller appears to have vanished, and there being no certainty that an anticipated coalition governments sill form, I don't see what else we can do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Ice Hockey Federation[edit]

Arab Ice Hockey Federation (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 organization, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Due to the article's link is either dead or do not exist. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. AaronWikia (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article provides no sources, and I can find none in my own search that would establish notability. The link to their web site given in the article is dead so I assume they are defunct but there's no way to verify that as there is no coverage of them. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as an idea that failed w/o leaving a trace of notability. while I would like to keep as "notpaper" we need some rs. Dlohcierekim 22:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments above --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For what its worth, the wayback machine's last good archive of the official site was June 5 2009, after that the site appears to have stopped being maintained and then became the home for domain squatting. So it doesn't appear that this imitative lasted very long at all given a 2008 start. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 2 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. Wizardman 21:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Dill[edit]

Casey Dill (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 meet WP:NBASE or WP:BIO. Has not served in a qualifying position with a team in a top-level league, and there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBASE; apparent WP:AUTOBIO. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBASE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. not in a notable position. no significant coverage. Dlohcierekim 22:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rémi Grellety[edit]

Rémi Grellety (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)

Someone please correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't this a case of notability being inherited? The film for which he was producer was nominated for a national award— that makes the film notable, but the producer? (the associate producer? The editor? The director? The gaffer? etc.?). A google search turns up twitter, facebook, IMDb, LinkedIn, various directory listings, photographs of him, and ample discussion of the film, but I am not finding discussion of him directly. References are mentions as the producer of the film. KDS4444 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where are the sources which show he is notable? Google's not showing it and it isn't showing in the article itself either. MartinJones (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If he were the director, I would think there might be a way to show the film nomination making him notable. However as the producer I do not think there is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete now if he'd been nominated for an award, that might be different. Subject is nn Dlohcierekim 23:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:GNG --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:14, 2 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) 21:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Christian (DJ)[edit]

Steve Christian (DJ) (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:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I can't find any refs. Do not confuse subject with the leader of Anberlin also named Steve Christian. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete just doesn't pass muster. Doesn't make my heart sing Dlohcierekim 23:09, 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 delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  05:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Fungi[edit]

Journal of Fungi (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 deleted after expired PROD in July 2016. PROD reason was "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Albeit slightly less new now (the journal was established in 2015), the only difference with the previous version of the article is that the journal is now included in DOAJ, which is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt obvious repeated effort to use WP to promote a new journal. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 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 keep, although there's probably a discussion to be had about where. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement now that the place existed. Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Außenarbeitslager Gerdauen[edit]

Außenarbeitslager Gerdauen (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)

Short version: fails the Wikipedia:Verifiability test.

Long version: This is a obviously a sensitive topic, and must be treated very carefully. I hope I am doing that here.

I note that this article has existed in articlespace since 24 May 2008 and has also been tagged as unreferenced on the same day it was created.

I declined the speedy deletion on technicalities. (Maybe I should have deleted it then and avoided more drama?)

I would argue that this article fails the Wikipedia:Verifiability test. A google search for "Außenarbeitslager Gerdauen" gives only mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Searches for its previous names do not identify anything that would be considered as reliable sources.

I considered whether this article should be WP:REDIRECT-ed to Stutthof concentration camp or Stutthof sub-camps or to the regions in Poland or the Kaliningrad Oblast where the concentration camp was apparently located. Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is some mention of this topic in google books but in German maybe it does exist under English name--Shrike (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:V. We don't even know if this is real. This should have been speedied. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the stub and redirect name; stub is not notable as presented for stand alone. I see it is mentioned in a sub-camp section, which is cited (although not RS cited), in the main article of Stutthof concentration camp; that should be sufficient. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stutthof main article section on sub-camps Clearly existed according to these history books on Stutthof: Polish book published by Stutthof camp museum and German book about concentration camps, and there are more results when the German sharp s is changed to "ss" for "Aussenarbeitslager Gerdauen," but I don't think there is enough information for a stand-alone article that would not be a stub. Kges1901 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the main Stutthof article where it is already mentioned Seasider91 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without redirecting unless the other thirty-nine subcamps are redirects.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The lack of size of an article is no reason to delete. So far the discussion already disproved the allegation that it fails WP:V. While there seem to be no over abundance of regular internet sources there are easy to find book sources. I found Endzeit in Ostpreussen. Ein beschwiegenes Kapitel des Holocaust and Die Todesmärsche 1944/45: Das letzte Kapitel des nationalsozialistischen before even reading the AfD page. It seems we are also missing an article on inmate Zofia Rapp-Kochańska Agathoclea (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WeakStrong keep - as for V and RS, try searching Gerdauen with other words, such as arbeitslager, aussenlager, lager, work camp, etc. I'm working on expansion and sourcing, what I'm finding isn't really in depth about this location in particular, but the level of significance is substantial. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, I don't have easy access to The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, but the camp seems to be covered in depth in Volume 1 (I'm not sure how many volumes are published, but it is intended to be a seven volume work). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the word, weak from my !vote to strong. A second and possibly third source with in-depth coverage are:
      • Wolfgang Benz, and Barbara Distel (Editors). Der Ort des Terrors. Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager Band 6: Natzweiler, Groß-Rosen, Stutthof. CH Beck, 2007 p609
      • Chirurg, Riva. "Bridge of Hope, Bridge of Sorrow." Berkeley: Judah L. Magnes Museum (1994). p151-159
    • Based on the entry in the index, Benz's entry is shorter than the Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia entry, but both of these have an full entry for the camp. Chirurg is an autobiography of a prisoner and survivor which has a chapter titled, "From Gerdauen to Stutthof". I'm not currently located at a liberal arts university, and I do not have access to any of these, but most US or German Liberal Arts universities have one or both. To me, this is pretty clear coverage by multiple independent NPOV scholarly sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If not kept, Merge (or redirect) per Seasider91. The main article lists 38 subcamps, spread over a large area. These were apparently labour camps, not death camps, though mortality was high. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the main article, specifically to Stutthof sub-camps; appears to have existed for a relatively short period of time (Sept 1944 to Jan 1945), if my reading of this material is right: link. Should in-depth sources be located, can be restored to a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent article improvements; an acceptable stub at this point, with potential for expansion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Stutthof_concentration_camp#Stutthof_sub-camps. The current stub has maybe two sentences of independent content. No prejudice for recreation, but for now it would be more useful to expand the section on subcamps in the main article, IMHO.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Night Terrors (Star Trek: The Next Generation)[edit]

Night Terrors (Star Trek: The Next Generation) (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 episode isn't notable. Having been insufficiently referenced for almost four years, it likely never will. This was de-PROD'd without valid rationale so we can have the discussion here. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Was able to very quickly find and add sources for this well known episode of an extremely popular TV series. This AFD seems unlikely to see success. Artw (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article lacks a sufficient amount of reliable sources. It fails to meet the standards at Wikipedia:Notability. The Google search results are sparse which indicates that this was not a particularly popular/acclaimed episode even after four years. I found no awards given to this episode. The best argument for a verdict of "keep" is that Wikipedia attracts the type of editors/audience that are Star Trek fans so an argument of "useful content" could be made. desmay (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's kind of weird, insulting and innacurate in pretty much every regard. Artw (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: There's nothing insulting about Desmay's comments. Further, the sources you added are questionable and I don't think they connote notability. Please try to not be a partisan about this. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with you on multiple counts there, especially regarding the sources and the tone of Desmays comments. Both your comments, TBH. Artw (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's more sourced information in this article than in the other Star Trek: The Next Generation episode articles if you follow the chronology links in the infobox. Some only list the DVD as the sole source. The TV series is notable and readers may want synopsis of plots of episodes. Although somebody might want to find out what the correct spelling of the other ship in the synopsis is, it's spelled three different ways in the article. Libertybison (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've made a number of improvements to the article and removed the refimprove and all plot templates as I believe those to no longer be issues (though the new Production and Reception sections could do with expansion). Currently there are no references cited in the Plot Summary section, I believe the AV Club and Tor.com refs more than cover that territory so I did't want to clutter it up. FWIW those two refs should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG, the book refs contributing also to some degree though obviously with reference works it's borderline territory. Artw (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems all ST:TNG episodes are notable. Improvements are well done. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see independent sources mentioning the episode. The episode is part of a noteworthy series which is part of a noteworthy franchise.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the specific notability of this episode is that it is bad. Widely considered bad. Like, 5 worst Star Trek TNG episodes, bad. For a series still as widely viewed as Star Trek TNG, that's it's own category of notability not yet included in the guidelines.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahb the Illuminated: So if there isn't a notability guideline that includes this episode, then why would you argue that it should be kept? Do you think your opinion is allowed in place of consensus? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the notability of the episode is established by independent secondary sources. That qualifies it for inclusion. What's notable about the notability is that the episode is notable for, well, sucking.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. All episodes of the major Star Trek franchises are inherently notable and have been recognized as such for a very long time. It is unhelpful to squander the community's most precious resource, which is the time and energy of its members, on this sort of nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth encouraging editors on one of the SF or TV related projects to go through and add a couple of refs to each of them anyway though, if only to avoid similar doomed AFDs from sloppy deletionists who don't perform WP:BEFORE. Since in every case they are going to be the subject of multiple reviews, recaps and guidebook entries it shouldn't be too hard. Artw (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(this is not me volunteering.) Artw (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: I am neither sloppy not a deletionist. I think we have a real problem. True, I expected some Trekkers to show up but I underestimated the chances an ILIKEIT argument would be espoused by editors that should know better. I'm dispassionately applying the notability criteria. You think all these episodes are notable because there's fan material published? Get consensus to change WP:TVSHOW. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, TBH I was thinking more in general than thinking of you in particular, but you did pretty plainly fire off a WP:IDONTLIKEIT AFD without doing a proper WP:BEFORE and now, instead of doing the proper thing and withdrawing it you're trying to front out some weird case that AV Club and Tor.com aren't proper sources. That's plainly not going to work, so I suggest you save everyone some time and withdraw your nom. Artw (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:WDAFD doesn't allow withdrawal once someone else has supported deletion. Second, AV Club and Tor.com aren't much better than fanzines. I might allow them as sources to back up material in an article but I don't think they connote notability. In any endeavor you'll have fan media that publishes about a niche interest. While I know editors prefer the absolutely loosest definition of WP:GNG, I don't. I did the BEFORE search and I continue to believe this episode isn't notable. I wouldn't have nominated it if I had a question in my mind about deletion policy. The fact that this fan material exists at Memory Alpha makes me question why fans are so dead-set about maintaining it here. In closing, I'll define for myself what "the proper thing" is. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Both of those are paying markets, not fanzines. Artw (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Even when we concede that not all Star Trek episodes are inherently notable, it's sort of inconceivable that any of them would actually fail GNG. This particular episode has been reviewed by numerous major entertainment websites, discussed at length in credibly published TNG and sci-fi reference books, and apparently at least cited in one psychiatry journal article (I can't see beyond the Google Scholar snippet). Clearly notable by our standards. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Juliancolton:

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 Riverworld. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 08:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jairus Frigate[edit]

Peter Jairus Frigate (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'd have just redirected it due to total failure at WP:GNG, but the prior AfD had a comment by User:DGG, whom I respect a lot, and if he thinks this is a notable character, well, 10 years later I'd love to hear yours (and anyone else's who wanders to this discussion) thoughts on this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Riverworld. I don't see a lot of analysis of this character. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep very notable series, a notable character as the authorial voice, and an indication of sources talking about it, tho not cited. They should be found.--there's a lot of literature about the author, and some of it probably discusses this. However, I admit I do not have the time to do this myself. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at sources, but I can't see any extensive analysis. A few sources do note he is his alter-ego, yes, but if there is any discussion-in-depth, as much as a single para on this, I haven't found it yet. I would be fine with merge and redirect, but I just don't see enough (either content or notability) for a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are any number of book references The Magic Labyrinth (but not the third Riverworld book of a similar title), Voices for the Future, The Devil gets his Due, Solar Flares, The Transcendent Adventure, Survey of Modern Fantasy Literature talking about how PJF is PJF: That Frigate is Farmer's stand-in in the Riverworld series. The analysis then seems to focus on Farmer rather than his thinly-veiled substitute character. I'd still call that enough to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the series article; not notable independently from it.  Sandstein  05:22, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Yarmouk Teaching Hospital[edit]

Al-Yarmouk Teaching Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews and mentions in gbooks refer to doctors that have worked there. If anyone finds substantial coverage in Arabic I'd reconsider. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NCORP.Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete' no reliable sources. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC) In light of good edits by Smmurphy. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep - I've expanded this a bit, the hospital is one of the largest hospitals in Baghdad and well covered by journalists covering victims of the Iraq War. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources have been added by User: Smmurphy so the article easily clears WP:NCORP bar now. The Al-Yarmouk Teaching Hospital is one of the largest hospitals in Baghdad, Baghdad has a population of over 8,000,000 people and it is the largest city in Iraq. Common sense dictates that one of the largest hospitals in a city the size of Baghdad is inherently notable. User: Smmurphy said the hospital is well covered by journalists covering victims of the Iraq War. Multiple nations have participated in warfare in Iraq so the hospital no doubt is covered by the press in several nations. desmay (talk) 00:52, 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) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanael Kapner[edit]

Nathanael Kapner (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. Subject not notable. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - subject meets threshold of notability for article inclusion.--John Cline (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Struck !vote and commented anew, below.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how? At the moment, except for a very few sentences in the Ynetnews piece, the article relies on one third-party source, Summit Daily News, a local paper for a county with a population of 30,000. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment is based on a google search of the subject, and not exclusively on the sources included in the article. In my opinion, the search returned enough coverage in independent reliable sources to justify the subject's inclusion.--John Cline (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to some of these RS, please? As it stands now, the subject seems little more than a lone conspiracy theorist, with no following or any claim to notability. Being a lunatic in and of itself doesn't make an individual unworthy of Wikipedia, but being a lone loon does. Scaleshombre (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amen on the "lone loon exclusion". I think that makes for great policy, myself, though I'd be a "loon" to put such a thing forth. And though it would do wonders in keeping the overwhelming amount of cruft out of Wikipedia, (YAY), it would not exclude this subject. While, he's not famous, like Farrakhan, or Moore, he is far from "lonely".

Normally, my prejudice would keep me away from this discussion; I stumbled here by my own intoxication, and I don't mean by drugs or alcohol, but my !vote was misplaced, here. I don't like the subject, nor would I read the publications that write of him. And the closer I look, into the subject, the less I see to defend.

I've stricken my !vote above, and changed it to merge, below. Best regards to all.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge usable content into List of conspiracy theories and redirect Nathanael Kapner there with ((R from merge)), ((R from person)), maybe with ((R to list)), and also add ((Unprintworthy)). I don't see how he doesn't meet the guidelines for a redirect and perhaps a WP:DABMENTION along the way.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is rather sad actually. Since it's rather sad, I'd rather leave the guy alone, and I'd want an indication this his notability is so high that we kind of must include him to fulfill our encyclopedic mission. I don't see that. Clicking in the link to find refs, the ones that come up first are: YouTube - Daily Stormer - Daily Stormer - Real Jew News - Age of Treason - Stormfront... ugh, that's enough. We don't need to publicize this stuff when its not really necessary. Herostratus (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm also having a BLP tussle with an editor who wants to keep some sad information that is arguably not ref'd well enough and anyway is gossip. Articles like this tend to attract BLP problems. It's worth it if the person is truly notable. For a person who is at best marginal if that, another reason why it is not worth it. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When most of the coverage on a subject comes from a paper serving a county of less than 30,000 we lack any signs of notability. Clearly no reliable 3rd party sources putting Kapner in a larger context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we achieve a sort of "censorship by systemically biased consensus" when we delete subjects by !votes such as are seen here. How else could we eradicate mention of subjects with verifiable knowledge that meets or exceeds our threshold of notability for "nopage inclusion", to exclude it from this living work that endeavors being the sum of all such knowledge, with !votes that amount to "higher bars" for topics we do not like?

  While it can not be said that this subject fails our criteria for inclusion, it can be said that we shouldn't include the topic unless it exceeds our inclusion criteria by a margin so great that we otherwise must include it, or that sources used to demonstrate its coverage must not only be editorially independent and reliable in statements of fact, but also, since we don't like the topic anyway, that sources must exceed an arbitrary circulation value of, say; for example: 30,000? Or, one might say, that no 3rd party coverage exists that describe the subject in a sufficiently large context; itself, dispelled by this book alone?

  Any who say, knowing an opposite truth, that this subject does not even qualify to be kept as a redirect, even to an article where they are not, as yet, mentioned, is simply being intellectually dishonest in favor of their own biased preference. My own bias is better served with this subject blotted out, but I am remiss to achieving that end by self-serving means.

  I find nothing to relish but am not afraid to tell a man digging: he digs with a spade.

  Having said all of this, I'll bid thee adieu, saying: "do carry on", lest you've strength to be true.--John Cline (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Binlerce yolculuk ayaklarımda bir mil yürümekle başlar ve ona bütün dünya deri kaplıdır. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book that you point to as providing sufficient context is something that fails basic reliable-sources tests. It's a vanity press. Nor can we claim that it is so influential that even its unreliable content must be seen as establishing notability; judging by its review count and sales rank on Amazon, it may very well have sold zero copies through the biggest bookstore in history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Delete NN not enough RS. While I too am saddened by the state of his soul, even his conspiracy views are NN. He is but one of many disaffected by modern life. In a way, I'm reminded of a Harlan Ellison story, The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Dlohcierekim 10:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sourcing is not adequate to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree the sourcing is not there to support a proper article on this person. The bulk of the citations in the article are to Summit News, a local newspaper for a fairly small area with a population of about 30,000. I don't think that's enough - it implies he's a local personality and nothing more, and local newspapers aren't the best of sources for sensitive content. Of the other sources [1] just quotes him as a representative of a certain kind of conspiracy theory and [2] is a primary source. There are BLP implications of writing an article about someone which basically makes them out to be crazy and/or ostracised, and I agree with Herostratus above that it isn't worth it in this case. I don't see why we should mention him in an article about conspiracy theories in general, he's not remotely well known enough for that. Hut 8.5 21:12, 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.  Sandstein  19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Plastics[edit]

Family Plastics (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:PROMOTIONAL article.No mention in WP:RS other than it's container being used in a bombing. Winged Blades ^Godric 12:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Family Plastics is Kerala's number one manufactures of plastic products and I will add more references and details very soon. Please give me some time as I am busy with my personal work.Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Note to closing admin: Rajeshbieee (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this WP:XfD.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Purely promotional. The editor uses a similar strategy of adding regional language references so as to swindle editors as can be seen in his other articles, including his other ongoing Afd [3]. The 1st reference is to a shopping site which sells their products. The 2nd, 3rd and 7th references are to offline sources, supposedly from Mathrubhumi, though the newspaper has an online presence since 1999. The 4th reference is to Google Photos and the 5th is from their website, both of which are updated by the company themselves, and are therefore Primary Sources. The 6th reference is to a Business awards function which mainly talks about Kris Gopalakrishnan receiving the Businessman of the Year award, while also fleetingly mentioning just the names of 14 companies that received Business Excellence Awards in different sectors, including Family Plastics. The rest of the references are about the London Blasts in which a plastic container made by Family Plastics was used. This is a case of a product WP:ONEEVENT at best, and it was probably just a co-incidence that one of the terrorists chose to buy a container made by the company. Jupitus Smart 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but have a deadline to provide supporting information. Rajeshbieee, wrote: "Family Plastics is Kerala's number one manufactures of plastic products." Wikipedia's notability guidelines often poorly fit developing countries where there are not a lot of strong press outlets - including business press outlets. So even though a company may be notable, it is hard to verify in some cases. Perhaps, a second look needs to be taken in this matter. With some additional thought, perhaps in developing countries alternate criteria could be used. Dean Esmay (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a lack of reliable sources. Depth of coverage is missing as well. We have merely a promise of the business owner to rectify matters with the explanation that he is busy. It is up to the business owner to establish notability if he wants to have a Wikipedia article. This should be done before the article appears and not after. Wikipedian Jupitus Smart says the business owner has a pattern of submitting articles which fail to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements in relation to some other businesses. We should not wait to delete the article. This will merely serve to reward the behavior we wish to see ended.Knox490 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Purely promotional. The sales pitch included in an irrelevant mention about a decade-past bombing in London was particularly humorous. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP and GNG. Pure corporate advert, not one notable feature. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and keep a close eye of the article's creator. He appears to be using Wikipedia as a place to get free advertising. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete NN. Not a soapbox or a fleamarket stand. Dlohcierekim 10:16, 2 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 Move to draft space. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 08:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwimSwam[edit]

SwimSwam (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 website, fails WP:GNG. The only current source which comes near to substantial coverage is an article in the Austin American-Statesman, which looks very local. Note that the article was created by User:WadeDeadpoolWilson, a single-purpose account who created a draft in 2014 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SwimSwam. In Jan 2014 the AFC was declined as non-notable by User:Tokyogirl79, and WadeDeadpoolWilson did not edit again until today, when they created this article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This is not a notable company or organisation that did not pass WP:AfC due to lack of independent and reliable sources. I'm not sure if it's a WP:COI issue, the evidence suggests that the user is just interested in swimming. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi all. I'm trying to get my feet under me with this wiki stuff. Did I do something wrong with the creation process on this page? WadeDeadpoolWilson (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)WadeDeadpoolWilson[reply]
• Move to draftspace – benefit of the doubt. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft space, per ProgrammingGeek. I also note that if the creator had been more savvy as to Wikipedia's procedures, they could have simply requested a WP:REFUND of the original G13'd draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated to include further sources and emphasize the notability. As I understand it, the prior draft needed more sources reporting directly on SwimSwam itself? The page now includes multiple such sources, including NBC Olympics. As it seems to be pretty rare for news media to report on one another, I can't imagine other similar companies having more sourcing when their wiki pages were created. If there's more editing needed, let me know. I'm a big follower of swimming and was surprised there wasn't a SwimSwam page, as they're basically the hub of all swimming news. I'd like to include more of their award winners and rankings and use that info to beef up pages for specific athletes and meets, but I'll wait until we get the page creation stuff sorted out before I jump to that. Thanks!! WadeDeadpoolWilson (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft space, per ProgrammingGeek and NewYorkActuary. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify – Rather obvious, given the fact that it was previously a draft. J947^(c) 23:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rescind Delete Support As per overwhelming support by @ProgrammingGeek:, @NewYorkActuary:, @XboxGamer22408: and @J947:. Many thanks for all your contributions to the discussion! I guess moving to Draft will need to be done after the AfD closes by @BrownHairedGirl:. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If others think that there is something worth keeping, then I have no prob with moving it to draftspace as an alternative to deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WadeDeadpoolWilson's statement that SwimSwam is a key swimming news website. Their Swammy Awards receive more independent coverage than the site itself does, and are referenced on multiple swimmer's articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Swammy+award. I'd be happy with move to draftspace. Sportygeek (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first four sufficiently demonstrate notability. Draft is pointless, the page is beyond the drafting stage. It's now or never. There are no expected new sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashk Dahlén[edit]

Ashk Dahlén (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)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashk Dahlén, a recent CSD-Repost was declined. Still fails to provide sufficient sources to establish notability under any applicable criteria for BLPs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Only 45 cites on GS will not pass WP:Prof. Normally one would look for about 1000 cites, give or take quite a bit depending on field of scholarship, but however much one takes it would not get down to 45. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Dahlén's book Islamic law, epistemology and modernity (2003, 2014 rev. ed.) held by around 200 libraries, would expect some reviews, haven't found any online, on the other hand, his book Deciphering the meaning of revealed law : the Surūshian paradigm in Shi'i epistemology (2001) based on his thesis/dissertation held by around 50 libraries does have reviews in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society pp257-259, here in International Journal of Middle East Studies pp333-334, Islamic Law and Society pp 144-147. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Dahlén's Modern persisk grammatik (Modern Persian grammar) is used as required reading for students of Persian at Swedish universities. He has also been awarded a scholarship by the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. /FredrikT (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Pretty convincing arguments on multiple PROF points, and there do seem to be come non-scholarly sources available too, (for example [4], [5], [6]) although there isn't a whole lot in the English language, but that isn't really surprising. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks like a pass of PROF to me based on the above sourcing. Lack of English-language availability doesn't really affect the core question. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only around 50 total GS citations. WorldCat says his Islamic Law book is held by 265 institutions, but his other books are almost all single digits (1 is mid double digits). For the record, it doesn't make any difference if one of his books is required reading at some particular school and we don't take websites as convincing evidence of notability. He clearly does not pass any of the PROF guidelines at the moment, but might in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Per PROF and GNG. Realiable thirdparty sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which categories of WP:Prof do you invoke? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 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.  Sandstein  05:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Alliance (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

The primary topic is the subject of another Afd, the Warsaw Pact was never known as the Eastern Alliance AFAIK, two entries are partial matches and the last one has no article, so there's not a whole lot there. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only the primary page seems to have been known by this title. Boleyn (talk) 11:00, 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) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DD68 Redux[edit]

DD68 Redux (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 series of references reviewing this gun's operation do not constitute coverage of it in reliable independent secondary sources (I do not consider "warpig.com" to be a reliable source). KDS4444 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete reluctantly. but sources are not adequate and I failed to find better. Dlohcierekim 09:39, 2 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) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahandar Chattah[edit]

Mahandar Chattah (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 which has been tagged as such since 2013. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate reliable sources, but were not successful. Recommending deletion if said sources cannot be found during the course of this discussion, with the understanding that populated places and localities are generally recognized as suitable for inclusion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undoubtedly a real place, perhaps misspelt, with many versions praising the local improvements committee, but all from personal knowledge and without citing a single RS. In desperation I turned to Google maps, to at least confirm location, and found no joy there. Dlohcierekim 09:47, 2 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) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nawaz[edit]

Mohammed Nawaz (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:NCRIC. bojo | talk 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doesn't seems to pass WP:NCRIC. --Saqib (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the player represented Kuwait in its initial developing stages at the highest level cricket Kuwait could play at that time, Kuwait was only an affiliate and played in the ACC trophies. The player also was the first to score an international century for Kuwait, in Pakistan against RDCA. YamDeeYoumar (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— YamDeeYoumar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as prior 2005, Kuwait was only an affiliate, and ACC trophy was the highest level of international representation for the Kuwaiti national squad. Said player participated and has significant scores in ACC trophies 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 with references in the article to further strengthen this point. YamDeeYoumar (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

striked repeated vote. --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 27 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 Ungmennafélagið Víkingur. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 09:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ólafsvíkurvöllur[edit]

Ólafsvíkurvöllur (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)

Author removed PROD. Hardly any claim of notability, and no sources cited. Doesn't seem to be all that notable, being a 500-seat stadium. Seems to fail WP:GEOFEAT. bojo | talk 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ungmennafélagið Víkingur, the club which plays at this stadium. No independent notability as far as I can see. GiantSnowman 10:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above Spiderone 10:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep/Possible Redirect I think this article is well written and needs a couple more sources, however this might not be enough to establish notability overall and if that is the case than it should be kept as a redirect or merged per the above votes. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 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) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hernando Ruiz-Jimenez[edit]

Hernando Ruiz-Jimenez (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)

Unclear notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, based on a Google search. Google News has a few hits, but they all amount to relating statements from him. While CEOs and, in tech firms, CIOs often manage to make WP:BIO, executive vice presidents , marketing VPs, etc., generally don't, in my estimation, as their activities are less visible to the public. Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete his level of position in business is way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Position not sufficient to have notability on its own. Dlohcierekim 05:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 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) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City Mall (Kenya)[edit]

City Mall (Kenya) (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 promotional article for a non-notable mall. A Google search revealed no additional sources, aside from a few insufficient short listings and mentions in tourist infos. GermanJoe (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page (a neighboring non-notable building, created by the same author with the same external links):

The Avenue Building (Kenya) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

GermanJoe (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable mall. Highly promotional and lacks sources and depth of any. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete lacks RS. just another mall. Dlohcierekim 09:55, 2 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Sight[edit]

Centre for Sight (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)

Simply paid for unnotable spam. Some of the refs do not even mention the company such as http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/07/katie-piper-acid-attack-eye-sight-stem-cell_n_1259354.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one mentioned the doc but not the center[7].

They have also it appears bought an article about themselves Sheraz Daya. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the Telegraph 2005 article has a fairly long description of a procedure which appears to have been new at that time, with some of the description provided by Mr Daya and the unit is mentioned by name. Otherwise, the only coverage is through their involvement in treating a celebrity. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:NORG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sheraz Daya if no additional citations are added. The Telegraph footnote IS a good and valid one, but as the nom mentions, the additional footnotes do not refer to the Center for Sight, only to Daya himself. So they absolutely satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements for HIM, but not for this article. That said, the Telegraph piece is strong enough that it implies the Center for Sight article may well be sourceable but is simply lacking the necessary links. If someone adds one more secondary source with significant coverage of this topic, great. If not, merge it to the article that clearly is notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. -Markeer 15:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'delete advertising brochure of a non-notable clinic. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No objections if relevant content is merged to Sheraz Daya -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as sources lack depth and aren't altogether about the subject. Dlohcierekim 09:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr rajinder toki[edit]

Dr rajinder toki (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 recently retired educator at a post-secondary institution in Punjab who, per his Facebook profile, has published 33 books in Hindi. None those books appear to have received any significant critical attention. Mduvekot (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a prolific writer does not make one notable per se. Either the works themselves need to be reviewed, cited, or there needs to be indepdent source indepth coverage of the person in reliable sources. Neither of these are shown by the sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete No joy at WorldCat. One ref on page is to amazon, an ominous sign. T'other failed to mention the subject. Times of India mentions (not in article) are not of sufficient depth. Dlohcierekim 10:25, 2 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) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gropp[edit]

Ryan Gropp (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)

NN amateur hockey player who neither meets the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY nor the GNG. Ravenswing 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Clearly not a notable hockey player yet. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:44, 27 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) 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Carter[edit]

O.K. Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All the links in the BLP is either dead or not showing any connection with the subject of the BLP Bishal Shrestha (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I think this nomination was made entirely too quickly, in the end, I agree that the subject does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion. The dead link (to Amazon.com) was simply a matter of a misformatted link, and was easily corrected in order to ascertain the ISBN for the book and use that instead of the Amazon link. As it turns out, the book, a local history of Arlington, Texas, was published by the Arlington Women's Club -- not known as a powerhouse in the notable book publishing industry. The award which the book won is a local county-wide history award; again, hardly notable on a global scale. Carter's career as a local journalist and historian does not rise to the level of notability required for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a book winning a county-level history preservation award is not a sign of notability. For that matter nothing else here is a sign of notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of any notability. Article has been written simply as a class project. Looks like a misuse of Wikipedia and could be a speedy as a person with no evidence of significance.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:32, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pachwaniya[edit]

Pachwaniya (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)

PROD was removed but I still think this fails WP:GNG. I can find no reliable sources that discuss the clan, nor that would merit the article being redirected. Sitush (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources (only source is a user edited site (that appears to have been edited by the same editor who created the page on Wikipedia). --regentspark (comment) 21:47, 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 WP:SNOW keep. Clear consensus that there is no reason to delete at this time. Can certainly be revisited in the future. (non-admin closure) ansh666 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitribune[edit]

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

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

There is a WP:SUSTAINED criterion for notability. This site has been launched today, and is currently in a closed beta and unaccessible to the general public: even though this is a website, I think it's worth considering the software notability guidelines, that mention that beta software (not even specifically closed to the public beta) can be notable if substantial "interest and development" is shown by sources that are not simply a "burst of coverage" upon announcement of the product. I cannot see how citations for an article written on the very day a closed website beta is announcement may not be considered a news burst.

Given this website may certainly become notable in the future (or it may not!), and the article is not in terrible shape, I definitely encourage participants to consider a move to WP:Drafts space; yet, since I believe this is an article where parts of Wikipedia itself may have a conflict of interest, and there have been talk page concerns about possible marketing spin, I think this warrants a broader discussion in the form of an AfD. LjL (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep *sigh* Just let the article snowball. Also, IF the subject is deemed not notable, just redirect to Jimmy Wales. Deletion unnecessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, calling for snowball upon the very first !vote on an AfD is... certainly interesting (especially by the original author). Having taken part in many AfDs, I am quite reasonably sure that most articles about such a "fresh" topic would far from snowball at an AfD, but, I guess someone who wanted to think maliciously would use this difference as evidence that there is special treatment being granted to this topic. LjL (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AB clearly means he thinks it will snowball. No need to be snarky. My opinion is this: Redirection to Jimmy Wales implies that it's all his enterprise, which it is notmay not be. I'll wait a bit to see how the article develops, because I'm slightly persuaded by the nominator's rationale that the same day the initiative is announced may be too soon for an article. - Bri (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence my suggestion it might be suitable for a draft. Seriously, the article was almost fully-fledged on Wikipedia at nearly the same time as it appeared on any news sources... This can only make me feel very uneasy, especially considering there is always a large amount of WP:NOTNEWS complaints being thrown around when it comes to covering major world events WP:TOOSOON, while this is, for now, a minor, announced but not open-to-public website that just so happens to be not-so-indirectly connected to Wikipedia. Really, whether or not that's coincidental in reality, what sort of impression does that give readers (who are already there en masse from places like Reddit) about Wikipedia's supposed neutrality? LjL (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is clearly notable and notability does not expire. In any case, per WP:FAILN, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy keep. Tech press.[8][9][10][11] Biz press.[12][13][14][15] Political.[16][17][18][19] News magazines.[20][21][22][23] Radio.[24] Television.[25][26] Newspapers.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Academia.[35] I'm seeing coverage in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Italy, Germany, Russia, Argentina, maybe others. One might quibble that these refs are not *all* guaranteed to be RS, or that maybe this will be the last coverage every received, or that this is just 'routine' coverage of yet another web startup being launched by somebody who is often in the news for other reasons, but that is wiki-lawyering. Wikitribune passes WP:GNG and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Even if no other sources are ever published we have enough to write a neutral encyclopedic article already. And that is what we should do. 'COI' disclosure: I have posted to Jimbotalk before  ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Premature Nomination/Keep for now - Seriously, this kind of slamming an AfD simply needs to end on stuff like this. If you want to re-nominate in several months after an article fails to get written to any degree and if the news coverage for this website stops (which seems to be the nominator's logic for this AfD), you might have a point. This isn't even appropriate at this to time make the kind of argument being made here. As to if this topic is currently notable, the basic test of several independent sources of information can definitely be found that more than deals with questions of WP:NOTE. Arguments about this from a political perspective belong on the Village Pump and definitely does not belong here turning the AfD into something of an indictment of the concept as presented by Jimmy Wales. If this nomination happened several months from now, I might even support a deletion.... assuming the article flounders and isn't much larger than when the nomination was just made. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG based on my searching. Yes, it's launched today, but it's being picked up by as heavy-weight of reliable sources as you can get (Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, CNN, NYT, etc etc - basically everyone). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One section above WP:SUSTAINED we have WP:NOTTEMPORARY which explicitly says that "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This is the case here, as demonstrated by 47.222.203.135 above. One should also note that WP:SUSTAINED explicitly says that brief bursts of coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability; this indicates that even this part of the guideline accepts that there are enough cases where is may be enough. Also, if the nominator's interpretation were correct, we couldn't have any articles on current events; yet, we do and we even have a notability guideline for them which even says don't rush to delete articles. So all in all this is actually really a case of WP:SNOW. On a side note, per WP:ATD this should definitely be redirected/merged to Jimmy's article if it actually weren't a notable topic so deletion would never be the correct way to handle it. Regards SoWhy 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:SNOWBALL. But why even nominate this for deletion? It's a completely legit redirect, isn't it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Can't see any good reason to delete this, at this time. Danrok (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. I wish editors would stop wasting our time with AfDs such as this one! Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for many of the reasons above. It is notable, in many papers all over the world and people want to read about it. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 22:31, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Particles expansion of universe[edit]

Particles expansion of universe (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)

Requesting deletion because it fails WP:NOT Kostas20142 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a steaming pile of WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as junk. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete it looks like original research. Even if it's not, it doesn't seem to be a notable idea within the mainstream of cosmology. No real claim of notability is provided (which isn't required but you might expect to see some evidence of impact, implications, importance, articles/books discussing it, etc.) Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Original research with zero evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - difficult to read, and wrong, original research. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M V Lakshminarasimhaiah[edit]

M V Lakshminarasimhaiah (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, nothing on Google. No refs currently, doubt notability could ever be established. South Nashua (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no sources, and can't find any sources so fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO - KylieTastic (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Unruhe[edit]

Jason Unruhe (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, not notable Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Addendum While the article has been expanded since the beginning of this AFD, almost all the references are self-sourced articles written by the subject himself; the article lacks credible, third party citations. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Subject comes up quite a bit in a Google search but only mentioned in passing, nothing detailing him to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing in-depth, only passing mentions. Even the passing mentions are very few. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the edit history says that I removed the PROD, but I have literally no recollection of doing that,and it appears tohave been an error. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral a lot of edit history results when searching "Maoist Rebel News". Not many good sources though. Jamesjpk (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SOAP. The news for which he writes is notable, but not him. This is little more than soapboxing. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tambellini[edit]

Adam Tambellini (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 league player who is yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY or otherwise meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he does. DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom; truth be told, I'm curious upon what basis the article was created in the first place. No objections to a redirect to his father's article. Ravenswing 19:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 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) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zamaanat[edit]

Zamaanat (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)

Probably (and for future) this film is "shelved" and was in making since 1986. No further any sources claims that film will release. Nominating it for deletion as further SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 15:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC) SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 15:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. The film has not been released and more than likely won't be. Meatsgains (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 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) 22:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ling (footballer)[edit]

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

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

Contested Prod, reason given that the player has played in the FA Cup. However, Soccerway confirms he has only played in the FA cup in a match not involving two teams from fully professional leagues. The FA Cup is not in itself a fully professional competition.

Original deletion rationale still stands, namely: Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Can only find evidence that the player has played at tier 5. Fenix down (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as stated above. Monty (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are some references to improve the article to meet WP:GNG (which trumps WP:FOOTY) found from a Google News search. In my opinion, it should be improved, not deleted per WP:ATD. 1, 2, 3, 4 Looks like there's also some potential hits on BBC - probably worth a bit more time adding sufficient references @DM Trix: Hmlarson (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all from one local, town-level newspaper. They cant be considered significant coverage as no one outside is town is writing about him. This sort of journalism can be found about many non league footballers. The BBC doesmention him but this is exclusively in routine match reporting and transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 21:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Sias[edit]

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

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

Only coverage appears to be about the election, which means this fails NPOLITICIAN. John from Idegon (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entered subject's name in Google search and only found 3 articles, and they all relate to his run for office, no independent RS coverage of subject outside of that, fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, all coverage is local and related to his run for judge. Fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election to get an article because election per se. (And no, being the first transgender candidate for a statewide office is not, in and of itself, a notability boost over other unelected candidates either.) And five pieces of campaign coverage is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL either, as every candidate in any election could always show five pieces of local campaign coverage — so that just falls under WP:ROUTINE. And nothing claimed or sourced here shows any preexisting notability for anything either. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He fails to meet NPOLITICIAN. Running for political office does not bestow inherent notability. There are no reliable and independent sources that cover him in an indepth manner so he fails to meet WP:GNG standards. If being a winning candidate does not mean automatic notability, certainly being a non-winning candidate does not convey automatic notability. And he is a non-winning candidate. I also agree with User: Bearcat that being the first transgender candidate for a statewide office is not something that causes someone to meet WP: GNG.desmay (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the subject ran for a city/county office (they are the same in Philadelphia) not a state wide office. Which probably makes it even further from a notable case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if elected the subject would not have been notable, holding a common pleas judgeship in a city is generally not enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 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 Withdrawn. per nominator request [36], non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia[edit]

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia (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)

Obvious, blatant Coatrack and POV fork. Anmccaff (talk) 15:09, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Stampede[edit]

The Royal Stampede (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, poorly written Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there is some definitive bar where "x number of views makes you notable enough for your own WP page," i don't see how this page passes WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Search for "Royal Stampede", definitely notable, they have also played in Tiësto's Music Video "On My Way". Mjbmr (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an unremarkable YouTuber; sources are tabloid-like. Being in one music video is an insufficient claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - It looks like it's Youtuber open season this week. This particular article isn't an advert, is reasonably written and sourced. A source check does show some coverage from reliable sources (of the group and their pranks) - but it looks to me borderline in quantity.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The *primary* subject matter in the listed sources in all cases is the prank or routine or song, *not* the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 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 redirect to Hunterrr. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunterrr 2[edit]

Hunterrr 2 (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)

Movie has not begun principal photography and therefore fails WP:NFILM. According to the article filming was to commence in January 2016, but on searching the most recent article found [37] (July 2016) states that the movie is still in the scripting stage. A case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Jupitus Smart 18:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Keep: One of the sources says "The sequel is CONFIRMED". It may be possible that the makers of the film have secretly started the shooting of the film. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to accuse you of anything, User:Mr. Smart LION, but you have been here for quite some time. Yet you continue to make articles about movies which have not yet started principal photography, knowing fully well that its not correct. And when they are up for deletion, you turn up to ask for a redirect as evidenced in [38] and [39]. You have registered a lot of planned movies with redirect pages including Force_3, Housefull 4, Krrish 4, Ishqiya 3, Tiger Zinda Hai etc all of which are only in the planning stages or are just gossips. As recently as 1 April you created an article and re-directed it to one of the actors. Is this some kind of SEO ploy or are you trying to WP:OWN these pages by creating skeletal redirect pages in the hope that you will remain the page creator when the article is re-instated as and when the principal photography begins. Whatever it is, read WP:CRYSTAL to know why we cannot have pages for films which are being 'secretly shot' (and as I mentioned earlier, the last dated reliable reference says that the movie is still in the scripting stage - and my reference is dated 1 year after yours, meaning the film is not being 'secretly shot') and why therefore it requires deletion.Jupitus Smart 06:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will not create articles on films which have not commenced principal photography. I very well know that films that haven't commenced shooting can't be created here. I started this process because I see many film articles created whose shooting haven't yet started but they aren't marked for deletion. You might not be knowing that besides mine, there are many Bollywood film articles whose shooting haven't been started. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 13:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not go searching for Bollywood movies and your article was a co-incidental find. Anyway if you know about Bollywood movie articles that are against site policies, you should ideally take action and nominate them for deletion. Jupitus Smart 15:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hunterrr. With sources like Indian Express, The Times of India, News18 covering this, at the same time with no substantial material on the film, we should for now redirect this to Hunterrr. Redirects are cheap; and people will search the net for Hunterrr 2. Lourdes 16:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please refer to this discussion before closing - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon (2017 film). It was a similar movie article created by the same user, and had the same problems. That movie is at least slated to start production in May 2017 but there has been no update on this movie (which has probably been shelved, now that the actress has become much more popular than her Hunterrr days). A user strongly argued for deletion in the other oage, citing the arguments presented by me here, and that ended in deletion. I believe that the same metric should be used in this case as well, as a redirect will only prove as an incentive for more such gossipy articles by users, undermining the encyclopedia's policies. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Jupitus Smart, I've read the Afd above. I appreciate the points you've put forward. If I may, as per general precedent at Afds, redirects should be preferred than deletion when there is a plausible search term. It doesn't matter if Hunterrr 2 has been shelved or not (there is no evidence of that though), with leading news sources covering the term, there is enough logic for redirecting the term to Hunterrr. In an Afd, there's no gain simply deleting articles. Redirect achieves considerable ends. Not only is the contentious non-notable material out of Wikipedia, but any interested reader gets redirected to the closest notable page. Closing Afds as redirects in such cases are supported by our guidelines and policies; please see WP:ATD. Thanks. Lourdes 00:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its good that you think differently. But I stand by my views that such a ploy by an experienced user to own articles by exploiting loopholes in the system, should be rewarded only with a delete as was felt by User:Winged Blades of Godric in the other AfD. It has been about a year since any news about the movie came about, making it doubtful that anybody would even search the term, unlike Dragon which has mainstream actors and was always in the news, before it ended up getting deleted. Cheers. Jupitus Smart 03:05, 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) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elenasmodels[edit]

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

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

This is a non-notable company. Looking at the references currently in the article and at the results of web news search, it is apparent that there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Deli nk (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]