< 28 April 30 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Femisplaining[edit]

Femisplaining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:DEL5 and WP:DEL6 as well as WP:GNG. This appears to be a fork of a neologism that is not supported by reliable sources. The sources in the article, save one, appear unreliable. There's no indication this term or idea is widely reported on, used, or accepted. Rather, it appears to be a backlash to mansplaining and, if so, would belong as a section on that page. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your sources are terrible, and still seek to take a minor, unknown neologism and make t into a thing. This is a lesson for the 21st-century Wikipedia editor; just because someone tweets about a thing or blogs about a thing, doesn't make the thing notable. My call to delete is hereby affirmed. TheValeyard (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was founded on the same principles as mansplaining. Just because the author of a book or a few people blog about it, doesn't make it notable. Thereby your call is not affirmed, but instead is rather hypocritical. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mansplaining article has 39 sources and gives hundreds of results if you search for it. Your article doesn't give enough results to meet the requirements of the General Notability Guideline so it doesn't qualify for inclusion. It really is that simple, so cries of "hypocrite" are going to fall on deaf ears. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • at least you actually validated your argument with something constructive. Searching Womansplaining does return hundreds of results as well. Perhaps it's too late to go back and change the title from "femisplaining" to "womansplaining" as that would seem to be the core issue of this article. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that, or even if it is possible. Regarding references, I'm slowly working on updating the article when and where I can. Unfortunately, as a university student, it can be difficult to put the time and effort into these things. Which I suppose begs the question as to why I created the article in the first place. Simply put, I'm pointing out a hypocrisy in society, whereby words against men seem to go viral, while those that are against women seem to fall short and disappear, which is a clear sign that there's a problem in society. In removing the article, wikipedia would be adding fuel to the fire and becoming part of the problem. I guess I was interested as to how bad the problem was. As for general notability, Womansplaining does fall aptly into that category. As I said before there is a lot of information on the subject if you would take the time to look, but again, I suspect it's a problem with the main title which you are referring to. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the place to point out society's flaws - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with articles based purely on what appears in reliable, independent sources. Yes, this can mean that Wikipedia reflects some sort of systemic bias that may exist within the wider world, but that's not the fault of Wikipedia's editors and it is not our place to put our own spin on things. I recently !voted "keep" for an article about someone who I wouldn't spit on if they were on fire - our personal opinions are not meant to be apparent from our editing, so take a step back and have a thorough, dispassionate read through of your article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be greatly appreciated if you could point out the downfalls of the article. I understand that there is a need to point out flaws generally in an article, but it's not helpful to those who need specifics in order to improve it. I personally feel like it's the equivalent of saying "look out!" and then not pointing out where the danger is. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been pointed out repeatedly - the main issue is notability, and it's one that you're not going to be able to fix because I've looked and the sources just aren't out there. The General Notability Guideline is quite clear about the level of coverage that is an essential requirement and that coverage simply does not exist. No amount of discussion can magically change that situation. The other issue that I flagged up was the lack of a neutral point of view, because your personal views are immediately obvious to anyone who reads the article. That issue requires such an extensive rewrite that I'm not sure it'd be worth your time to do it, especially because the article may not survive this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing will be fixed with an attitude like that. The articles are out there for Womansplaining, not so much for femisplaining as it's often mixed up with the former, but as I mentioned before, I clearly made a mistake with regards to making Femisplaining the main topic instead of womensplaining. Apparently, there is a way to change the title of a piece by moving the article. Although, given that this topic is clearly too controversial, it makes me wonder if it's even worth the effort, especially given how unhelpful the criticism has been thus far. I appreciate you're trying to help and that it's probably quite irritating watching this progress/regress the way it has, but the criticism given thus far has been of no use whatsoever. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A title change would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Mansplaining is a notable topic, as evidenced by the number of quality sources that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for what is a good, reliable source. You approached this topic with a "well if that exists then this must exist too to balance it!". The problem there is that the "this", i.e. woman/femisplaining, does not exist as a thing outside of alt-right blogs and twitter feeds, or the occasional passing mention in a real source ridiculing the attempts by the alt-right to make woman/femisplaining into a thing. TheValeyard (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted, as per the below request of the author RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ghys[edit]

Ian Ghys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Google search does not confirm notability. WP:BLPPROD tag removed without addition of reliable source (only of IMDB, which is not a reliable source). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IMDB not a reliable source?RoaringLiger (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. You can delete the page as I understand why.RoaringLiger (talk) 12:49, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of kosher restaurants[edit]

List of kosher restaurants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are literally thousands of kosher restaurants over the whole world, including a few thousand in Israel. I see no reason to single out 24 of them. None of them in Israel. Not to mention that the list contains 2 closed establishments. Deletion was suggested on the talkpage as well, see Talk:List of kosher restaurants. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN that indicates value of this list. All it says is that lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. That doesn't make a point for the article yet. In this case, the category would be enough. This article doesn't add anything to the category. Debresser (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they are closed, then they are no longer a kosher restaurant. This is not the category for former kosher restaurants... Debresser (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After some editing, there are only 17 entries left, of which 3 only have some kosher branches, 2 are chains that carry some or mostly kosher products, and 3 are closed. I think the chains with only some kosher branches or products, don't really belong in this list. Per my argument above, closed restaurants also don't. I really don't think we should have this list for the remaining 9 kosher restaurants, or even for 17, for that matter. The category is more than enough for that. Debresser (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Companies no longer in business are not automatically deemed non-notable, as per WP:NTEMP. See also WP:OUTOFBUSINESS. North America1000 09:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have an argument that being now closed means it shouldn't be listed, any more than that the dead should be deleted from lists of people. That status can be noted in the list's "description" field. And such annotations, as well as the sortability of the list's table, are what this list provides above and beyond the category (not that this is even necessary to justify keeping the list as well as the category, per WP:NOTDUP). postdlf (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The article is not intended to be a complete listing of every kosher restaurant in the world, it's just for notable ones. Also, the article does not contain "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses", which is what would be an actual violation of WP:NOTYELLOW. North America1000 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of the removals. I actually proposed them, as I stated above. However, the museum and community center operate a restaurant, so they should be in the article. After all, there is a restaurant there! I restored them. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you put those articles in Category:Kosher restaurants? postdlf (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are. They have been. And for some time.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a list and corresponding category should have the same inclusion criteria, such that if an article belongs in a category it also belongs in a list organized around the same topic. Though if anything lists can afford to be broader in inclusion than categories, because lists can annotate more borderline cases or group them separately under headers noting a disputed status or whatever. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal How is this not a reply? Debresser (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are also List of Chinese restaurants and List of Italian restaurants. There are posts on each talk page asking about the validity of the list. I would support a general eradication of such lists per the rationales mentioned here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also List of Thai restaurants. --Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the "lists of restaurants" navbox, I would advise doing away with virtually everything in the "by cuisine" and "by ethnicity" sections. --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So also deleting Category:Restaurants by type or Category:Ethnic restaurants and all of their subcategories? If so, by what criteria would we then index our articles on restaurants? postdlf (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about categories, only lists.--Khajidha (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I asked you about how the principle you're advocating would affect the categories that correspond to these lists. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this is a list of notable kosher restaurants per Wikipedia's standards, and is not a general list of all kosher restaurants in any region or in the world, nor is it intended to be. It's unclear why people in this discussion keep stating that the article is improper because of the existence of many non-notable kosher restaurants in the world. The list is not meant to list non-notable restaurants. North America1000 23:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty clear sign that they have not read the whole discussion before commenting, nor are they familiar with our guidelines and practices regarding lists of articles. postdlf (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps they disagree with you, like at least another two editors here. Please assume good faith. Debresser (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this list (and others like it) fail on "readers over editors" grounds. It does not give any real information, but is only a readout of the state of Wikipedia articles on kosher restaurants at this time. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser: "Assume good faith" does not mean "assume there's a good argument". Commenters do not demonstrate that they have a good argument, or that they have meaningfully considered and participated in the discussion, when they repeat a premise already explained to be incorrect, or they raise a point that has already been rebutted, without presenting a counterargument or even acknowledging that a rebuttal had been made. Unelaborated "disagreement" is then woefully inadequate to fall back upon. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha: Please do read WP:LISTPURP (on "navigation" specifically), and WP:CLN, which were cited to in the very first comment in this discussion and are directly on point as to your claim. And look again at the annotations in the list. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did read those, the LISTPURP is what clarified for me what the problem I'm seeing with this list is. --Khajidha (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you haven't even mentioned its navigational function as a list "of Wikipedia articles on kosher restaurants at this time"; you've instead appeared to express the opinion that we shouldn't have such things, contra LISTPURP and CLN. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much to navigate with a "list" of some 10 out of the hundreds or even thousands of kosher restaurants that exist. The article should be called "A very partial, embarrassing so, not usable for anything practical, list of a few kosher establishments". Debresser (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which could be handled by adding "For articles on individual kosher restaurants, see: Category:Kosher restaurants" to the kosher restaurant article, with the added benefit of avoiding the implication (inherent in the simple title "list of kosher restaurants") that this list is comprehensive rather than just a list of those few restaurants that we happen to have articles on.--Khajidha (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is just to say you disagree with existing consensus and guidelines regarding the navigational use of such indexes of articles (and yes, it is about navigating our articles) as having value and being complementary to categories. Which is an opinion that is not specific to this list. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You feeling the need to reply to everybody who disagrees with your point of view, including repeating the same thing over and over, is becoming a bit stifling for the discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We all do that some times. Please don't remove your vote just because of that. Even though you disagree with me, but I value your input. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're very kind. No, I honestly don't know what's best in this case. I'm a big proponent of CLN here yet the fact that virtually every restaurant in Israel -- save, I guess, for those catering to Arab Israelis who are halal? -- would have some form of kosher designation, apparently, gives me pause. BTW, if this list goes, one of us should nominate the category for deletion, for as we know, the criteria for "definingness" on a category is even higher than a list. Postdlf sort of alluded to that above and I can't see a category without this list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One way it seems to be handled in other lists of "national" or "ethnic" cuisine restaurants is to limit them to restaurants featuring that cuisine outside the country of origin: for example List of Chinese restaurants, per definition at Chinese restaurant that it's "an establishment that serves Chinese cuisine outside China." Otherwise the designation is not meaningful; a restaurant in China that serves Chinese cuisine is just a restaurant in China. Whether that treatment is appropriate for kosher food and restaurants in Israel is not a question we need to resolve here, and again it should be resolved the same way for the category as well as the list. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And since the status of restaurants in the Jewish homeland has been raised above in what seems to me to be a relevant point, I've added it to the above deletion sorting page, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SubGlobal[edit]

SubGlobal (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 can't see any obvious way of sourcing this article, a search brings up pretty much nothing relevant to improve it. The article was previously tagged CSD A7 but then reverted, so I'm bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:02, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progress World Championship[edit]

Progress World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted just a few days ago as part of a bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress World Cup. Speedy deletion requested but denied. Championship still doesn't meet WP:GNG, no more than it did a few days ago. Nikki♥311 21:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can copy the histories from this diff. I think it's okay to merge the championships but strongly disagree about restoring every tournament. That's something for the talk page anyway.LM2000 (talk) 07:56, 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) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamanitha[edit]

Kamanitha (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 book from non-notable author. Blackguard 21:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chitral Vision[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chitral Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a "newspaper" that has been flagged as a hoax, and has no sources other than their own (now defunct) website, their own Facebookpage and their own page at Linked.in. The article is related to a Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (article now deleted at AfD, again...), and like all other articles related to that person created by and mostly edited by socks of indeffed sockpuppeteer Akbaralighazi, and intended to promote Chitrali (who was very prominently mentioned in this article too before it was pruned a bit). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 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. I'm afraid the "delete" arguments have this one by a wide margin. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of things considered foul smelling[edit]

List of things considered foul smelling (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 put this unpatrollled article up for PROD, subsequently removed from that list so taking it to AFD. I contend that this is an entirely subjective, uncompletable, and unencyclopedic subject. "Foul" is in the nose of the beholder and a list of stinky things is little more than an amusement, serving no rational WP navigational purpose. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In bad odour
  2. Biomarkers of good and bad food
  3. Handbook of Odors featuring the wonderful "Nasal Ranger"
  4. The Science Behind Revulsion
  5. Breath Odors: Origin, Diagnosis and Management
  6. THe Foul and the Fragrant
  7. Food Taints and Off-Flavours
  8. The Neuropsychology of Smell and Taste
These demonstrate that the nomination's claim that the study and classification of smells has no rational purpose is blatantly false. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So then, might I ask, is it banned on public transit in Southeast Asia is it's not generally considered foul smelling? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author, I was careful to choose the title correctly with "considered". This isn't a "list of things that definitive smell bad to everyone" it's the consensus of the majority of our population. Not to WP:OSE, but there's List of music considered the worst List of automobiles considered the worst, I bring them up because they too had debates around them and the consensus was simple: if multiple independent sources discuss it, it meets GNG along with WP:SALAT, since the list itself is being spoken about not simply it's items, it should stay. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not WP:SUBJECTIVE. The list inclusion criteria is "An item should be included on the list if and only if a reliable source said it is or can be a source of foul smells." This is not subjective.

    For List of unusual deaths, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination) concluded that the topic was not subjective because "To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual." This principle is applicable to List of things considered foul smelling.

    Cunard (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If one source says it is foul. That is totally subjective, I can (again) say that there is one smell that I don't like and state it in a book. Others can say they love the smell, publish this and we have a conflict! Unusual deaths is less subjective, insofar as it is less common for comment on non-unusual deaths, few sources list usual deaths in any detail so you do not get this sort of dispute. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 12:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wrote a book and referenced it, that would be WP:OR. We're talking about widespread consensus by multiple peer-reviewed outlets. Are there ketchup outliers? Absolutely. Can you reference independent significant sources to support that? It's only subjective in that you experience it. Again, it's not about what you find foul smelling it's about the widespread consensus of the general population backed by sources. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel that it misses the point, if one were to write a paper saying that X chemical is foul smelling, and then another saying that X is not, there is a conflict. The ides of smell can't be objectively measured. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:55, 6 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) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Starr (artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Matt Starr (artist) (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)

Resubmit after apparent previous nominations. Fails WP:ARTIST. Weak references don't support that these works have been particularly well-known, but merely received a scant amount of media attention in some online magazines. Doesn't not appear to be widely considered important or noted by peers, not particularly well-known for innovating any specific significant technique, etc. It also has an entirely unsourced Early life section, as well as a large amount of unsourced material in Life and work. Ultimately seems much more like a self-promoting resume on a personal website than a biography of a notable person. Ampersandbrown (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell[edit]

Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell (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-encyclopedic content; a personal essay, a hotchpotch of fan speculation and original research. Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 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 procedural close. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Malkova (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in articles of deletion but it appears this article was under consideration. I'm submitting this again under 2nd nomination. Since there are clearly not many reliable sources and only one major award given. The AVN, XRCO, and XBIZ awards were not one of the major categories of awards given. Only one separte award from AVN meets the standard of a major award, which was the Best New Starlet award. For Reference number 4, there is no clickable entry to verify this reference. Reference 2 and 5 is debatable as to whether a Twistys award or mention of an award, is worthy of inclusion. Reference 6 is clearly written from a blog, not as reliable as the Adult DVD Talk interview, or even as credible. The Adult DVD Talk has interviewed a multitude of adult performers for many years, on a near weekly basis. It is coming from a very reliable and credible adult talk site.[1] The blog indicated in Reference 6 looks like a minor, opinionated and unverified source clearly from a blog, as stated. Written in extremely simplified terms, with photographs attached, from a blog that usually does not write about adult performers. In fact, if you read the article up to near the end, it is jokingly insinuated that it looks like a porn production. The photographs could be for a video, for all we know. There is also no certificate of authenticity to verify what was going on in the photographs. Just someone who writes a blog that does not usually involve adult performers. It also lists a twitter account as proof, but who is to know whether that is real. It may have been created just for this blog site.[2] The name mentioned as her friend, under the career section, is also unverified. Finally, when you click on Reference 8, you are lead to an error page, with no verifiable information provided. I'm a fan of Mia Malkova, but seriously wonder if one major AVN Award under the Best New Starlet award category, deserves an article or profile on wikipedia. There is also a lack of personal information in regard to her profile. Understandable, perhaps, given the industry she is in. Mentioning a Twisty award of the month or Twisty award of the year, is questionable since this is not a major award or may be debatable as such. Whether it deserves even a mention in her article page, with only one verifiable reliable source, is also questionable at best. I do not want a deletion, but if someone may provide more information, references, etc. and more awards, rather than just one major award, then please add that information. Otherwise, consideration for deletion may be possible. This article does not meet established guidelines of WP:PORNBIO If it does meet it, then it is meeting only one established guideline. Scenicview1 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jack, Captain. "Pornstar Interviews by Captain Jack". Adult DVD Talk.
  2. ^ Covucci, David. "People Who Do It on Camera For Money Can Find Love". Bro Blog.

Mia Malkova[edit]

Mia Malkova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article "may" not meet the guidelines for notability. Scenicview1 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Trebbau López[edit]

Pedro Trebbau López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created along with other also related by an editor that seems to be on the side of a person that sued this and other officials of a company. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco D'Agostino (3rd nomination)is an example of a very similar article created by him that was already deleted. I think the same argument that was given by Xymmax: "The article is essentially the story of ambassador Reich's attempts to sue the subject and other people in the United States for allegedly illegal business practices in Venezuela. There are other sources that have shown up in the article from time to time, but the all center around this. When stripped out, as they are currently, there is little to support notability. Thus, we a have ONEEVENT/BLPCRIME case that properly should be deleted" applies here too. Jflainez (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raman sidhu[edit]

Raman sidhu (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)

Businessman with a nice career but there's no sign of significant, reliable coverage in third-party sources (only current reference is LinkedIn). Fails the requirements of both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft[edit]

List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft (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)

An unnecessary cross-categorisation. Most of the subjects included are redirects to another list for lack of individual notability. Per the outcome of the discussion: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. These articles have been redirected to alphabetical lists.

The article relies on a single, less than RS source. Obermaier (1989) (originally published in the 1960s) is a questionable source; see discussion at de.wiki on an attempted promotion of a list covering Luftwaffe fighter pilots to a Featured List: link. The nomination failed mostly because of the source, which was described as weak and dated. One of the comments was: The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. (...) According to WP:Q, the lack of scientific literature points to a lack of relevance.

Created under the POV title List of German World War II ground attack aces in 2007, when Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion were more lax. (Specifically, such "aces" do not exist; for a comparative concept, pls see "Panzer ace" in popular culture). Such lists do not exist for the Allied "ground attack aces".

For the reasons above, the list lacks encyclopedic relevance and I recommend deleting it. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was part of a discussion on whether a radar operator (Erich Handke) should be considered a flying ace. Since he participated in the pilot's victories, some have argued for it, but I don't think this idea gained traction. The AfD closed as delete for lack of notability.
Specific to this discussion, my contention is that Radar operator aces and Ground attack aces do not exist. Grouping them into a list serves no encyclopedic purpose and is WP:LISTCRUFT, similar to comparative lists that appear on the Template:Footer Knight's Cross recipients. As I've pointed above, such lists of the Allied "ground attack aces" do not exist.K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not addressing my point in the slightest. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand your point. As I mentioned, a list of flying aces, such as List of German World War II jet aces, is useful, since a flying ace is a recognised concept. But not for any other "aces". The article on "Submarine aces" has been likewise deleted / redirected; see AfD: Submarine ace. There are multiple reasons to delete this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the Handke AfD, you argued, in part, that flying aces are not prima facie notable, and that in the event that they are not individually notable, they belong in a list of aces. In this AfD, you are arguing, in part, that since the individuals on the list are not all independently notable, the list should be deleted. Clear now?
As to your other, substantive points:
  • Use of the word "ace" is not POV.
  • On subject of submarine ace: WP:OTHERSTUFF.
  • Criticism of Obermaier: what a random, anonymous editor on de.wiki thinks about a given source is irrelevant. Also, WP:SOFIXIT, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, etc.
  • And the idea that since no one has used the term "ace" to describe very successful pilots of ground attack aircraft means we can't have a list of said pilots is, frankly, ridiculous in the purest sense of the word. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you missed my rebuttal of that argument, perhaps because K.e.coffman tried to hide it before you commented here. But, in case you did not see it, AfD is not for cleanup. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basing the list on a single source still is problematic. If sourcing were to even marginally improved then I will change my opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 5 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.

Hayden Szeto

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) Jax 0677 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Szeto (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)

Was recreated after being deleted through prodding. Working, but non-notable actor. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and their resume does not show that they meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 18:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2017/04/28/the-top-5-best-actors-to-play-nightwing-in-a-batman-spinoff-movie/#121c0e964e06
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/11/24/edge-seventeen-breakout-star-hayden-szeto/94056254/
--Rogerx2 (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Iraqi Civil War (2014–present). If edit-warring over the redirect continues, it may be prudential to ask for page protection. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Kurdish-Islamic State War[edit]

Iraqi Kurdish-Islamic State War (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)

Content fork (possibly POV fork) of Iraqi Civil War (2014-present); redirect undone by IP which may or may not be article creator. Previous creations by this author have been deleted and/or redirected on the same grounds. ansh666 18:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ansh666 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ansh666 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh666 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Platt[edit]

Tatiana Platt (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)

Platt just does not rise to the level of notability. The Forbes article has one paragraph in a much longer article that mentions her. It does not rise to the level of significant coverage. The New York Observer is a dead link, but looks to be about her campnay and not her, notability is not inherited. The sources from her own websites just cant be used. The last source is from Dan's Papers which does not look to be a reliable source. to begin with it is a local Hampton's publication covering more the Platt home than the Platt's. Secondly, its editing is shoddy and has perpetrated hoaxes. Actually some have been intentional, but others seem to have just been a result of horrible editorial oversight. There are a few other sources that name check Platt, but only because a friend of her then 19-year-old stepson allegedly raped someone on the roof of their penthouse during a party said stepson had while his dad and stepmom were away. None of this is the stuff of encylopedic notability, but it is the stuff of tabloids. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 5 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 merge to A Stitch in Time (novel). – Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palandine[edit]

Palandine (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 fictional Star Trek character does not appear to be independently notable. Reliable sources independent of the subject have not discussed this character in sufficient detail for an article to be warranted. I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:

Bamarren Institute for State Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pythas Lok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barkan Lokar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) VQuakr (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Torgov[edit]

Sarah Torgov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 17:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 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. A few WP:ITSNOTABLE comments do not address the fact, pointed out by others, that there is no reliable in-depth sourcing in this BLP. If anyone would like a go at rescuing it, let me know and I'll move the content back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the notability criteria set out on. Contained unreliable and questionable sourced which have been removed since they cannot be used as citations. Blatant promotion written by a by socks of indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer Akbaralighazi. Saqib (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have we decide to keep the bio, lets curate it as per reliable sources available on web. I have created the Draft:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali. The bio can be further expanded using this source which mentions that he have recieved many awards but I'm sure not sure if those awards not noteworthy enough ? --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cold stop. Those are not reliable sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the Express Tribune as unreliable source, though we can question the accuracy of reporting. The subject may have approached the journalists for press coverage. I didn't liked the fluff piece by Daily Pakistan which reads "He is a freelance contributor and pioneer of Khowar Wikipedia and writes in Khowar language articles for Wikimedia foundation." Seriously, is he pioneer of Wikipedia? Anyways Per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." --Saqib (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I clarified above, the links I added were extracted from a basic search as a starting point. I will need to take another look regarding the reliability of the Geo and News Tribe etc. links, as (at first glance) they just appear to be normal Urdu articles covering the subject. Also, I am pretty sure Daily Mail wasn't in the discussion. Actually, DM doesn't even have an Urdu version (unless I'm mistaken). Maybe you are confusing it with Deutsche Welle. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point of referring to the Daily Mail ban here is to indicate that we should be cautious about citing any other news website as a source, in particularly on BLP's. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article. Thus, delete. Also, the sources aren't independant/reliable.Burning Pillar (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| babble _ 17:10, 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.

Hussein Kanji

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) Jax 0677 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Kanji (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)

An unremarkable venture capitalist. I'm not able to locate coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. The coverage is either PR driven or contains commentary by the subject: link. WP:TOOSOON -- the subject is not yet notable per encyclopedia standards. The author (Special:Contributions/Misterpottery) appears to have created articles on several marginally-notable businesspeople in the past; see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Trost (entrepreneur). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As one of the Keeps is by the article creator, I think relisting this is best.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| talk _ 17:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghezaal Enayat[edit]

Ghezaal Enayat (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)

Promo, no reliable sources given The Banner talk 16:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Independent Writers[edit]

Ottawa Independent Writers (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)

Essentially a rerun of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prose_in_the_Park_Literary_Festival - same local news cites, same obvious COI, same minimal notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a conversation. What is the difference between this page for the Ottawa Independent Writers and existing wiki pages like Quebec Writers Federation and Crime Writers of Canada? Is there a bias against writers' organization in the Ottawa area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literary Muse (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but one obvious reason is that you have a blindingly obvious COI. Your account is only used to promote this festival and people associated with it. Those existing pages may have disinterested editors working on them. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the articles are inadequate as written, it's known that the depth of reliable source coverage about both the QWF and CWC does exist to get them over WP:GNG — so while the articles do need to be improved, the basic notability is there because we know that the required depth and breadth of media coverage does exist. But the required depth of coverage has not been shown in this case. Also, both of those other organizations serve a much wider area than just one single city — QWF is provincewide and CWC is nationwide, while OIW is merely local. Not that local things can't necessarily get into Wikipedia too, but they have to be sourced significantly better than national or provincewide things do given that their level of notability isn't as inherently obvious. Saying that the OIW has to have an article because the CWC has one is kind of like saying that the mayor of Chelsea, Quebec has to have an article if Justin Trudeau has one: not a solid argument, because they aren't on the same basic level of notability in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree totally. None of those pages were created by completely disinterested editors. I know most of them. Only people interested in the literary arts take the time to create wikipedia pages like this. Of course, I am a writer and promote my fellow writers. Isn't Wikipedia about the spreading of culture? You are doing Wikipedia a huge disservice by objecting to the sharing of information about culture in Canada.Literary Muse (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Disinterested" is not in the sense of "having no interest whatsoever in the subject area" — obviously people primarily work on Wikipedia articles about subject areas that interest them — but in the sense of not having a direct conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which any person or thing is entitled to have an article for public relations purposes just because they exist; we keep articles about things that can be properly demonstrated to pass WP:GNG on the basis of being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not about everything that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a service to the community. There are many writers and people who wish to become writers in the Ottawa area, and greater awareness is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susantaylormeehan (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala (disambiguation)[edit]

Kuala (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of moving Kuala is independent of this AfD. As there doesn't appear to be a rival for the primarytopic, there's no need for a move for disambiguation. A move for article title reasons is also separate, both are offtopic at this AfD. Widefox; talk 20:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please seek username change, suggest Humourfiend. Thanks, made me chuckle. But seriously, I added a ((confused)) Koala .Widefox; talk 11:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Currently it's only linked from Kuala [11]. A new need at, say, Cuala (disambiguation) is separate, and not obvious to me. Widefox; talk 16:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now corrected. – Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realise now I might not have been very clear. My point was that links to all the pages I've listed ought to be included in the See also of Kuala (disambiguation). If it gets deleted, then these links will instead have to be listed in a hatnote at Kuala. I was arguing that this hatnote would be a bit too big. – Uanfala (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cuala now has a hatnote to the new dab Cuala (disambiguation). There was a need for it. Is that a good place to put those in the see also? Widefox; talk 19:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
they're added, not that I think they're crucial.  Done Widefox; talk 19:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.

Yung Simmie[edit]

The result was No consensus. After being relisted more than twice, the discussion contained a mixed collection of reasons for keeping and deleting the article, whose artist has multiple charting tunes. (non-admin closure) --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Simmie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards. Billboard charts are deprecated, per WP:BADCHARTS. Sources cited in article are primary sources (interviews) or trivial, paragraph-long mentions in industry or fansite publications. Unable to locate a significant secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: Since your assuming and acussing me of only creating this account to save this article You should take a little look here WP:DNB, also you should read this Who not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines) , pretty much your tagging us to intentionally take away the relevance of my and :@32zel: "keep" requests. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also i would like to ask what is that "single-purpose" your acussing my account of being part of?Kakashi123456789 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing any of those things. You have a total of 64 edits, starting March 2, 2017. At a glance, they all look to be in the area of very similar music. That's a SPA from my perspective.
The issue here on this page is to determine whether or not the Yung Simmie article should be deleted. You believe there are reasons for a "strong keep", but haven't offered anything that remotely supports such a position. I've offered basic approaches to solving this. They've been ignored by everyone arguing "keep". As a result, I've decided the article would be better deleted, but offered yet more ways we could resolve this differently. You've responded by taking this as a personal attack. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first and third source listed are interviews, which are primary sources. The second article is a short bio and a track listing. These sources hardly support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those were only some examples, as you can see in the article there is still many more of reliable sources such as XXL Magazine, Complex, The Source [4][5][6], the artist is notable and certainly deserves a wikipedia article.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth is another interview. The fifth is a short profile that might, with other similar or better sources, together demonstrate substantial coverage. The sixth is an announcement from three years back.
Basically, there's one source here that might demonstrate notability if there were more like it. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yung simmie has shown multiple news coverage for a considerable time , here evidence of past and present articles, still there is more articles that i could present but i think this is enough to show the artists notability .[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Kakashi123456789 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked at each sources cited and it is a cacophony of primary source interviews, one sentence-long intros to a video, and vacuous paragraph-long bios. A more obvious example of WP:E=N and WP:SOUNDCLOUDBAND would be difficult to find, but consensus seems to have spoken. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What @Magnolia677: is assuming isnt correct, the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Danielle Bregoli brings back 150,000 more articles on Google. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you trying to troll or something? Please dont try to change the sentence and try to keep the mature ambient that the discussion once had until you brought up your joke. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kakashi123456789, you wrote "the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE." If Wikipedia articles were based on notability "over the years", whatever that means, the "cash me outside" girl would also have an article, but it was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Bregoli (personality)), just as this one should be. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The discussion isnt about comparing how much existing articles a certain artist or personality has. 32zel (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT First of all the comparison is out of place since Yung simmie and Bregoli dont have nothing in comon.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Just to let you know Magnolia677 that you wanted the Danielle Bregoli article deleted, because you nominated it. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Agreeing with Bloomdoom and 32zel on this. He is notable enough to have an article. LilNumerator (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC) strike comments from confirmed sock.[reply]

Having said that, I am willing to give the editors arguing “keep” a chance to get me to change my ivote. While I’m reasonably well-versed in publishing and music marketing, I’ll admit I know nothing of the Miami underground hip hop scene. Looking over the edit history of these “keep” editors it appears they have a common interest and/or connection to the scene. And although a few of their histories reveal a rare or/no participation in prior AFD discussions (a tell-tale sign of their presence here being the result of possible WP:CANVASING) I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt and hear their arguments why the Miami hip-hop scene (and it’s key proponents) are encyclopedia-worthy. It will certainly need more than what has been shown so far. The only decent reference, as pointed out by user Ronz, is the article in XXL. But if that’s it—just one—then, no, it does not represent significant coverage, and neither is being one-out-of-fifteen people listed in an article enough to merit a stand alone wikipedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

@ShelbyMarion: HotNewHipHop is not a user submitted site, they have their own editors, so I don't know where you got that idea from. Some more sources featuring Yung Simmie here, here and here. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources featuring Yung Simmie here here here 32zel (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ http://www.complex.com/music/2017/03/yung-simmie-tawks-fancy-iggy-azalea-grand-theft-auto-go90
  2. ^ http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/yung-simmie-its-simmie-season-2-mixtape/
  3. ^ http://www.xxlmag.com/rap-music/the-break/2014/07/the-break-presents-yung-simmie/
  4. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/04/02/yung-simmie-talks-new-album-raider-klan-more-in-miami/
  5. ^ http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/florida-rappers/
  6. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/03/04/yung-simmie-delivers-his-latest-lyrical-exercise/
  7. ^ http://therapfest.com/new-hot-hip-hop-exclusives/premieres/rapfest-premiere-9th-wonders-mentee-mark-steele-drops-new-single-wave-2/
  8. ^ http://www.themaskedgorilla.com/new-music-yung-simmie-full-metal-2/
  9. ^ http://www.themaskedgorilla.com/new-music-yung-simmie-dead-beat/
  10. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-underground-king-prod-by-purp-dogg-new-song.1971835.html
  11. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-simmie-season-2-new-mixtape.116623.html
  12. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/stream-yung-simmies-new-mixtape-its-simmie-season-news.22609.html?
  13. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-basement-music-3-new-mixtape.116081.html
  14. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-fantastic-video-new-video.36362.html
  15. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/02/20/check-out-yung-simmies-new-visual-for-strap-in-my-lap/
  16. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/03/25/yung-simmie-reveals-full-metal-freestyle/
  17. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-shoot-da-3-feat-denzel-curry-new-song.1970452.html
  18. ^ http://www.clashmusic.com/news/listen-yung-simmie-acrobat-freestyle
  19. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/07/02/yung-simmie-spaceghostpurrp-link-up-for-thankful/
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No other comments after the last 2 relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes (talk) I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the sources given here. Billboard’s Next Big Sound chart is not a significant chart, it merely charts an aggregate of content downloaded on social music share sites such as Pandora, Last.fm, iheart, etc.. While tracking this info may have some value to industry professionals, for Wikipedia purposes it—like all social media aggregates—amounts to nothing when determining a subject’s notability.
Movement Magazine is local coverage of the Jacksonville, Florida music scene, and while perhaps a major third party profile therein might account for something, the example cited here does not appear to be a "decent profile review," rather it is merely an announcement of an upcoming release, the kind of standard trivial coverage that is called out in WP:NMUSIC#1 as precisely what is not an indicator of notability. Look at the link at the bottom of the page that allows one to directly submit news of events or announcements; this type of promotional content is consistent with the the vast majority of coverage this subject has gathered, very little of it representing true, independent, third party coverage.
Finally, the BBC links are not indicative of an artist being in significant rotation as cited in WP:MUSIC#7. You’ve provided archived links to 3 specific shows from the past (From Sep 10, 2012, Jan 24, 2013 and Nov. 3 2013) on the BBC 1XTRA’s Player Radio digital site, a targeted Urban-centic sub-catagory where 37 DJ’s curate playlists based on their personal preferences. For DJ’s to include a track by this artist in their lineup on four occasions over the past 5 years (I found another one from Sep 26, 2014) is a separate debate of notability; it emphatically is not the same as being on rotation on BBC1 (or any of their other main stations).
I still stand by my delete vote registered April 7. I’ve followed the comments here—as I wrote that I would—with a good-faith view to have my mind changed. Although googling his name returns tons of hits, none of them are beyond trivial, self-promotional, social media, or being including among a list. Considering his first proper release is coming later this year (per his social media comments) this is, at best, WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I appreciate and respect your viewpoint on the Billboard charts and BBC links. While various Billboard charts have been deprecated, the Billboard chart I have given is explicitly not deprecated. While I respect your view, unless consensus exists that this chart that I have quoted cannot be used, charting on this chart provides NMUSIC support to the subject. Additionally, my view is the same with BBC. I'll request you to search and find out the listings where BBC provides national playlists. A national radio channel has presenters/DJs who select songs based on their popularity. And the subject being selected by multiple DJs on BBC over a significant time period is evidence of WP:NMUSIC#7 being achieved. Let me reiterate, I appreciate your viewpoints and see them as a logical perspective and interpretation too. Thanks. Lourdes 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Thanks, Lourdes (talk) . BTW, where are these discussions that determine policy? I’ve asked before but didn’t get much direction. I feel the insight from my background in music marketing can benefit the wikipedia community. IMO, some of the criteria could use more clarity, even hardline definition. Billboard’s Next Big Sound Chart needs assessing. It’s true that it is not among those listed as deprecated, but I couldn’t find it listed among those that are acceptable, either. It may simply be so unimportant that it’s never been given consideration. I find it curious that Billboard Twitter charts have been discounted, but their Next Big Sound Chart—a tracking of online social activity regardless of context—hasn’t. (See: https://help.nextbigsound.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2547277-what-is-next-big-sound ) While I believe social media numbers can, in fact, reveal helpful information, they are susceptible to having their numbers corrupted by those savvy enough to know how to do it. And if this subject—Yung Simmie—has convinced me of anything it’s that he (or someone or an agency working on his behalf) knows all too well how to use the internet as a tool for promotion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, you are right about the promotional part. As SmokeyJoe has mentioned, we can bring this article down to a stub in case the article is kept. Lourdes 02:39, 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 already speedily deleted by User:Nyttend. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Shot (Drinking Game)[edit]

Bank Shot (Drinking Game) (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 drinking game with no coverage that meets the GNG. Sources in the article are about beer pong, images in the article are about beer pong. Article creator's name suggests they invented this game. Speedy (A11) declined. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow keep. The debate is currently whether it should be keep or merge, and I do not see any consensus on the question, but I see strong consensus against delete. The merge discussion should be opened, please continue there, and I close this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey[edit]

2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and NAVEL. Subject fails the WP:10YT. This might warrant a line or two in Media freedom in Turkey. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Add to Nominating statement) Various countries block major websites all the time. Such actions rarely justify individual articles. There is a raft of articles dealing with censorship by country. To the extent that this warrants any mention in the encyclopedia it belongs in the above linked article unless something much more significant comes of this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move it all to Government censorship of Wikipedia. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 15:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I have !voted below, in a somewhat different way than my above comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Have you read any of the above comments or the nominating statement? Numerous guidelines and policies have been cited. If you have a policy/guideline argument for keeping this, I'm sure we would all like to read it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No action against A140 motorist who drove into car head on is currently on the front page of BBC News. Do you think we should have an article on that as well? Wikipedia isn't a news ticker; for a subject to warrant an article on Wikipedia you need to demonstrate that it complies with Wikipedia policy, not that you personally find it interesting. ‑ Iridescent 16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doc James: But nobody is arguing against "censorship still [being] relevant in 10 years". The question is whether this particular incident of censorship is not only notable but notable enough beyond the subjects government censorship of Wikipedia and Internet regulation in Turkey such that it demands its own article (i.e. WP:NOPAGE). Nobody (save, in part, the nominator) has argued to delete (i.e. it's clear there's consensus this should exist somewhere in Wikipedia), but what I'm not seeing (and I'm replying to you but talking to everyone) is a strong argument for this article being kept rather than the subject being kept. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*That article link is an example of a better place to split. Instead of having a standalone for Wikipedia, have a standalone article for "Internet censorship in Turkey" that is independent of Censorship in Turkey (which is, alas, an increasingly broad topic area) and also I think Internet regulation in Turkey, which is more about the bureaucrats and possibly describes a greater range of actions. The goal here is to chop up the main topic area into convenient chunks, without losing any pieces. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; WP:NOTNEWS. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This rant has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Laurdecl talk 01:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore! task a senior wikipedia staffer/editor with dealing directly with the Turkish authorities to lift the ban and also instruct that wikipedia staffer/editor to blog their efforts daily in this article until the ban is fully lifted and an assurance is delivered from their Presidents office that it will not be reapplied Wikimucker (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not understand what Wikipedia is. I suggest taking a look at WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you require a read of WP:TE before you go off on another one. Wikimucker (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So pointing out that we are not here to right great wrongs is now tendentious editing? I missed that memo. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing it out in here is WP:TE the way you are going about it. Your opinion is not worth any more than any other editors opinion at this moment in time. If the block continues then it will become a major worldwide news story in its own right and the development of this news story deserves an article. Wikimucker (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you want this article to be kept and used as a political advocacy tool by a WMF employee? Do you actually have a policy-based reason for your view? Laurdecl talk 01:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will rephrase a tad for clarity. I believe that a senior editor (or 2) should be tasked with editing this article from now on (meaning it is otherwise locked to anonymous editing and editing by non designated editors) and that they should be aware of all efforts made from the WMF side to get this ban lifted and that they should keep the article abreast of these efforts. I have not contributed to the article under discussion and will not do so in future. Wikimucker (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving media coverage does not exempt a topic from AfD. Quite the opposite actually, per WP:NOTNEWS. Internet censorship occurs in authoritarian countries all the time. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we don't have an article on their blocking of YouTube, more popular, or Facebook, more popular. Censorship is routine in such countries. WP:NAVEL. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "censoring", the information will be kept if merged. The issue is whether this article meets WP:SUSTAINED. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurdecl: My comment was about the Turkey government wishes for Wikipedia to censor information they don't like, I did not mean that deleting this article would be censorship. My comment may have been unclear, sorry about that. I meant that we/Wikipedia are not about to censor information they don't like, so the issue is not likely to be over very soon. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. I thought you meant that merging this article would be censorship; my apologies. I agree with you. Laurdecl talk 08:08, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Milestone[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2nd Milestone (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 place. No substantial content about the place is available. This has been discussed at Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#AFDs or otherwise deal with marginal articles on named corners where it was identified as one of the most egregiously non-notable articles in a too-long series of articles about Isle of Man road "landmarks". I voted "Keep" for this article in the 2015 AFD, then judging that drama was not worthwhile. Since then, I and others created List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course to which multiple separate named corner articles have been redirected. For this 2nd Milestone one though, I recommend deletion because there is literally no information to share, and it is not worthy of a row in the list-article. (See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keppel Gate, Isle of Man.) doncram 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty (series 32)[edit]

Casualty (series 32) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to achieve WP:GNG and is only relevant for information on a character returning in that particular series, which is already spoken about at the character's page. Soaper1234 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Soaper1234, the article does not meet WP:GNG. The sources for the episodes are for Series 31, which are of no use for a Series 32 article. The characters have not been referenced; no episodes have aired in Series 32 yet, so how do we know a character won't leave before the end of Series 31 (there is one character leaving before the end of S31 who is in the S32 article, so already there's a mistake there). It would be more appropriate to create the article closer to the start of S32. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Department of English, Tejgaon College[edit]

Department of English, Tejgaon College (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)

An English Department— with no evidence of notability. Article could be turned into a redirect to the college in which it exists, but the bottom line is that the department is not notable and a redirect is only a polite way to let the namespace remain when the subject actually does not warrant even this. KDS4444 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haus (Band)[edit]

Haus (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The M Magazine article is an "interview" that is shorter than this deletion nomination and has no named author. The WhenTheHornBlows reference is a link to a page where you can hear the song. The Music Glue reference is another incredibly short no-author interview. I was able to find one other "interview" on them, for the third time with no named author, on Wonderland Magazine here. Three short "interviews" that could have been written and answered by the band themselves or by their manager and very likely fail to meet WP:I do not constitute a case for notability. KDS4444 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gab4gab: I understand. This is why I never nominate articles for deletion that are less than 30 minutes old. But I have yet to see any policies or guidelines or essays that specifically state how long an article should be allowed to exist before becoming fair game for a regular deletion nomination other than those which suggest that there should be no grace period at all (WP:NEWARTICLE) and those that say that certain kinds of speedy deletion should not take place within the first 10 or 15 minutes of article creation (WP:NPP, WP:CSD). Two hours seems more than fair to me, but how long would seem fair to you (given that this was done during a "new" page patrol)? KDS4444 (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KDS4444: I agree that it's all very vague and pick your own wait period. Personally I'd tag the article for notability and come back the next day to see if the creator had come back with anything. But I understand that may be considered extreme caution. I usually work new pages from the other end of the queue >>And God bless you for that, I don't have the patience! KDS4444 (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) << so I don't hit this issue myself. I appreciate you sharing your criteria & I'll dial back my too-soon alarm. Gab4gab (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seifuku Densetsu Pretty Fighter[edit]

Seifuku Densetsu Pretty Fighter (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 WP: PROD. Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. No indication of importance, and the only reference in the article is a primary source. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:24, 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.

Barry Floyd

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 The Game (U.S. TV series). (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Floyd (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)

While he has had a single role in a television role which might be considered significant, that's it. I'd say it would be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but he's been acting for over 10 years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Brooks (astronomer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kate Brooks (astronomer) (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 fails to meet notability requirement for persons. Subject is listed as being of note as an astronomer, subject is neither of note as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics[1] or at this time an astronomer having left field in April 2016 [2]. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia Notability (Academics)". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
  2. ^ "Staff Profile for K. Brooks". Murdoch University. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
  3. ^ Kenyon, K.; Paramasivam, A.; Tu, J.; Zhang, A.; Graham, A.W. (January 2012). "Citations to Australian Astronomy: 5- and 10-Year Benchmarks". Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. 29 (2): 132-140. Retrieved 30 April 2017.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yak Misraee Nazm[edit]

Yak Misraee Nazm (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)

Self-promotional puffery sourced only to the mentioned poet's, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, own Wordpress-blog, and like all other articles relating to Chitrali created and edited by blocked sock-puppeteer Akbaralighazi and/or their many confirmed socks. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten (video game)[edit]

Kindergarten (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, sourcing consists almost entirely of a multi-part YouTube walkthrough, other YouTube gameplay, a GameSpot overview page (not an article), and only one single article. Additionally, the articles is written like an advertisement and consists of a lot of trivial content (such as achievement lists). Lordtobi (✉) 09:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources not included in the article that could be used to prove notability:

Jamesjpk (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lalit Chandigarh[edit]

The Lalit Chandigarh (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)

Just another run of the mill hotel with no notability. Borderline promotional tone Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kingad[edit]

Danny Kingad (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 (unexpalined). Initial reasonNon notable MMA fighter - not even close to meeting WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 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 Speedy Delete. CSD G11 (blatant advertising) Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Williams (marketer)[edit]

Pete Williams (marketer) (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)

Seemingly WP:PROMOTIONAL BP with lack of RS. Independent search finds no better sources. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

as a new user how did you find this AfD? LibStar (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Society for Technology in Education[edit]

Alaska Society for Technology in Education (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 Google news hits are from local newspapers ("Juneau Empire", "Arctic Sounder"), or are press releases. One trivial mention in a US News & World Report article, no substantive discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. Article has no references of its own. KDS4444 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 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 no consensus. Not much discussion, and after having been relisted twice, there is currently no consensus about the notability of this subject. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Lord & the Self-Portraits[edit]

Art Lord & the Self-Portraits (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 defunct band that appears to have only one significant mention repeated three times (the last three refs) All the remaining refs are drive by tags in articles about a successor group. No evidence of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thefore created a stub, moving the section on the Future Islands article as it was at the moment. I was still working on both articles when the Art Lord & the Self-Portraits was called for deletion (less than 3hrs later). Regarding the lack of significant mentions, the band was active between 2003-2005 with a reunion in 2013, and since it is difficult to find online articles older than a decade, and the successor group exists for 11 years already, most online still existing interviews about the band were indeed given by Future Islands. Also, I was still in the process of adding and organizing references. I have now developed the article a bit more and should it sill not be considerent sufficient, I am ok with merging it back into Future Islands and make it a redirection page again. Wapunguissa (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Velella: The article has already been relisted twice with no comments then my own which is discouraging. I believe WP:BEFORE C.2 (If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.) should have been applied given the fact that the article was nominated only a couple of hours after being created from a redirection. I was thus forced to developed it quickly, though I'm still finding information about the band (and refs) through my research which I haven't had time to bring in it. Wapunguissa (talk) 16:11, 6 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. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Talker Tour[edit]

Sweet Talker Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this venue listing article has any value or notability. Only two refs one of which is an own web-site and the other an apology for not appearing. Hardly the stuff of notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of sister tennis players by nation[edit]

List of sister tennis players by nation (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:LISTN, there are no sources that group sister tennis players together that I can find, thus the article is WP:OR. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support renaming the article to something like List of tennis players who are sisters - the current title seems off. Hmlarson (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are not specific to tennis, they support the inclusion of List of professional sports families - not the tennis players. I can't find any sources listing tennis playing sisters, which means that it fails WP:LISTN. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can and provided two tennis-specific references as examples to get started. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that covered a general overview of siblings was USA Today. This discusses the idea of tennis double siblings, not sisters. WP:LISTN requires for the idea of tennis sisters to be discussed as a set or group, and I can find no examples of this. Further, the one source is not enough. as required by LISTN, to be sources. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mastiksoul[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mastiksoul (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 musician. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC - TheMagnificentist 21:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ademe Cuneo[edit]

Ademe Cuneo (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 establish notability meeting the standards set for runners. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTRACK. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecurity CS5L CMM[edit]

Cybersecurity CS5L CMM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as yet another recreation of deleted content. This article, with varying names, has been deleted at least four times, but the editor keeps bringing it back.

The article is also sitting at User:Mmalizola/sandbox. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Brewster[edit]

Rhian Brewster (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 footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). Fbgpwns5277 (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:29, 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 keep. WP:RFD is the correct venue for these discussions. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sevalal[edit]

Sevalal (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)

content merged with banjara (article) ... no need for this page India1277 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 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 speedy delete. There was not even an assertion of significance. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Vignali[edit]

Massimo Vignali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no citation India1277 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion (1638)[edit]

Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion (1638) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable, historical sources for the Doctrine itself. Quote does not sound contemporaneous at all. No mention in History of slavery in Maryland, which says "the first Africans were brought to Maryland in 1642, as 13 slaves at St. Mary's City, the first English settlement in the Province." Qzd (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this site and several others have the exact quote. Does this have a genuine basis? I suspect that primary sources on colonial history are published, so that it should be possible to verify whether this is genuine or a hoax. However, I have to say that the terms "black" and "white" so not sound contemprorary. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 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) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AVI Sound International[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AVI Sound International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see it satisfying WP:COMPANY. No real improvement since the first Afd way back when. Even the one review states the company "has flown under the radar of the masses for so long". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 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 merge to ZDT's Amusement Park. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switchback (rollercoaster)[edit]

Switchback (rollercoaster) (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)

Merge into its parent article, ZDT's Amusement Park. Very little published information available, which is not likely to grow at this point (as is the case with roller coasters which get the most press at the time of release). This demonstrates low notability as well. There was a misconception years ago in WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks that every coaster needed to have its own article. That is definitely not the case. GoneIn60 (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
doncram, I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in with your thoughts. I think as experienced editors, we realize there is often more than one way to approach a situation like this one. I would generally agree that discussion on the talk page of either the article in question or the target article of the merger is a good alternative (or at least a good first step prior to an AfD). In articles dealing with lesser-known topics that generate very little traffic, going that route often results in a fruitless endeavor. Currently, the amusement park article as well as the coaster article average less than 10 views per day over the last 3 months (9 and 6, respectively). Fully aware of this, I chose to take it straight to an AfD. It is a good point, however, and I'm glad you raised it.
As for the concern that significant details in the infobox would be lost in a merger, I should point out that this can be accomplished in as little as two sentences. Here's an example of what can be merged into ZDT's Amusement Park:
On October 17, 2015, the park introduced Switchback, a wooden shuttle roller coaster that features a record-breaking, 87-degree incline. Manufactured by The Gravity Group, the 63-foot-tall (19 m) ride drops riders 58 feet (18 m) and reaches speeds of up to 40 mph (64 km/h).
All significant details would be retained, while the irrelevant specs – capacity, # of trains, etc. – would be dropped. Many roller coaster articles cite RCDB.com for those statistics, and they are rarely reported in other sources. If they are desired after the merge, the amusement park article can be modified by interested editors to include a ride chart with detailed descriptions, such as the tables on display at Kings Island#Areas and attractions.
A good litmus test of when a roller coaster should have its own article is the amount of coverage in the days, weeks, and months leading up to and following its release, particularly outside of its jurisdiction. This is a crucial period of time when editors can glean information about marketing, reaction, and other aspects which help demonstrate a reasonable level of public engagement and anticipation. There just isn't much outside of a general announcement that's regurgitated in a few sources, so future expansion beyond a stub isn't likely. That crucial window of time has come and gone. Unfortunately for coasters in this situation, expansion isn't possible unless an accident or unexpected event that receives national attention occurs on the ride. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for extensive response, changing !vote to "Merge" above. --doncram 21:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More