< 31 July	2 August >

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. only (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahr Power Bahrain[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I agree with nominator, this doesn't measure up to the wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Unfortunatly, without good WP:Reliable sources, this can't even be merged into an article on wave power. Geo Swan (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the world needs to know as new invention. It has already been published in local newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdanish (talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Struggled to find independent sources on web to save this article from deletion as the concept seemed quite interesting, but failed. Did few MOS edit to improve it according to encyclopedic style of writing and also removed a YouTube video as citation. Came to conclusion of deleting it as it fails WP:RS, article has no reliable sources except self-published blogs. Once coverages become plenty, article can be recreated

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research wrapped around Spam like Hawaiian Spam musubi. If it were not deleted, I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 August 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The result was Happily withdrawn TimothyJosephWood 02:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Illyria (musical)[edit]

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

It's hard to tell if this is notable, since the name is so exceedingly generic, but given the articles own claims, it ran for a couple of weeks in a single theater, and I'm not seeing really anything to contradict it and say that it was somehow notable. TimothyJosephWood 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess I would add, of the sources that carried it through the last AfD ([1], [2], [3], [4]) #1 appears to be a generic link not mentioning the subject with no archive, #2 appears to be extremely local and of passing importance, #3 appears to be a generic page with no archive other than other generic pages, and #4 (archive version) just seems unreliable on its face. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello! I just joined Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I'm not supposed to participate in this discussion, but I noticed this article while looking through the Musical Theatre Wiki Project and right after I'd started to edit it, it was nominated for deletion. I'd like to help save it if I can. Would any of these sources help prove some notability? [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I found these from a pretty quick search, and I could provide more if needed. Paracosms (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paracosms. Absolutely! If you would like to improve the article I would happily withdraw the nomination. If you think you need a substantial bit of time to work on it, I can withdraw and turn it into a draft, so that you have more time to work on it in the meantime before it is published as an article. TimothyJosephWood 00:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Timothyjosephwood! Thanks for answering so quickly. I'd be happy to improve the article. Does this mean those sources would be okay to use? If so, I can get to work on it right away. Paracosms (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Paracosms, I looked through the first few and they inspired confidence. Just ping me when you've incorporated a few and I'll clean up this whole mess. TimothyJosephWood 00:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TimothyJosephWood, I've incorporated some of the references and added on to the article. Let me know what you think! Paracosms (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better Paracosms. I'll withdraw post haste. Please do not remove the copyvio banner until an admin takes the time to remove the previous revisions that were copyright violations. Welcome to Wikipedia BTW. Sorry for such a rude initiation. If you ever need anything feel free to ask on my talk page. TimothyJosephWood 02:05, 2 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slick Pulla[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm seeing some passing mentions in interviews, but nothing in-depth to sustain an encyclopedia entry. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TooSoon. A few sources shy of the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't want to pile on but don't want this relisted for further consensus. --Ifnord (talk) 16:13, 9 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Andra[edit]

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

Not notable drummer. Allmusic credits him a performing on three albums and there is no indication that he is notable outside of the bands that he has performed with. Karst (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way below meeting notability criteria for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO. --Ifnord (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasna Jojic[edit]

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

Seams to be non-WP:Notable. I can't find independent reliable sources that discuss her life. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, fails WP:AUTHOR. I can't find anything either. No such user (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:05, 6 August 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 Mentholatum. Restoring the redirect seems to be an agreed upon way to handle this. If someone wants to expand it into a stand-alone article, they can still do it. So Why 13:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Heat (heat rub)[edit]

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

Not notable, little coverage online, this article seems promotional more than anything. NikolaiHo^☎️ 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one product of a company. Not notable in itself.PRehse (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly reasonable redirect by @Gaijin42: was rejected by an IP account for no reason, valid or otherwise. Delete or redirect Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Our house generally has a tub of Deep Heat lying around in either the bedroom or the bathroom; unfortunately this is one of those cases where a well-known and recognisable product doesn't come up in sources so much. The mentions in this search do suggest it's a household name, though. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore previous redirect. It's not a terribly useful redirect because it's unlikely somebody would type this awkward phrase into a search box. It seems to exist mostly to service the Deep Heat WP:DAB page. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, so I can't get too worked up over a pointless redirect, but deleting it outright wouldn't be a terrible result. If it does get deleted, fix up the DAB page to point to the right place. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Nothing indicates that this product is notable. No authoritative references are provided.--Rpclod (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Justice Film Festival[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable film festival. I am unable to find any reliable independent sources that cover the subject in any detail. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and return to author as a draft if wished. While Sheen Center has coverage, their new film festival does not. If an article for the facility is created, their festival can be spoken of within it until a separate article is merited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self published sources, fails WP:GNG ****
Delete - completely unknown here in NYC. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 8 August 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 moved to Draft:Susannah Fullerton. Yes, I realize that none of the participants in the discussion have proposed this, but we are stuck on the edge of a cliff here. A majority favors either deletion or redirection somewhere else, but there is not a clear consensus for deletion. On the other hand, some of the "keep" rationales are based on a quality of the subject that is not a basis for keeping - receipt of the lowest level of the Order of Australia award. A quick independent look at news hits reveals that there are a substantial number of possibilities which could support notability as a noted field expert, independent of any award status, but these need to be more thoroughly plumbed. Therefore, the article is moved to draft, and can be submitted to restoration to mainspace through the usual process for submission of drafts; of course, if it is left untouched for an extended period, it will automatically be deleted. bd2412 T 16:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Fullerton[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria at WP:BIO, minimal sourcing and certainly not written from a neutral POV. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficient NEXIST to support the article, but which could be better referenced. Certainly does not appear to be written by someone who dislikes the subject, but it does not appear to biased with praise either. The article could do with some wikification and restyling, but that is not grounds for deletion. Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid for promotion. Something Wikipedia is not. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that was an actual policy to delete articles, Bullets and Daffodils would be toast. See parallel discussion on WT:CSD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about which WT:CSD thread you're referring to? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and temporarily salt per nom and Duffbeerforme. Article mainly written by a WP:SPA whose userpage ([16]) has a link to some kind of online marketing/SEO website misleadingly labeled "Independent web developer," which is not adequate WP:COI disclosure for me. Per WP:NOTPROMOTION, this article should be WP:TNTed to discourage such behavior. I don't think any volunteer editors should waste their time earning the paid editor her fee. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but suggest re-targeting the article as the Jane Austen Society of Australia as that's what the news hits seem to talk about more. The promotional fluff can be cleaned up by regular editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you want to drop some tactical nukes or stub-ify then fine, but she passes the GNG, regardless of NPOV or COI. ABC Online and several Australian articles in the past decade are what convinced me. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. If some other, established, editor wants to write a new article about this person, that's fine. But we're not providing free advertising space. I'm not going to waste time finding the right policy to cite, so call it WP:IAR if you want to. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could post-relist commenters please weigh in on whether or not the article's sources demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for her own article? Please bear in mind that promotional tone is a reason to cleanup the article, not a reason to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references indicate any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (albeit weak) - may just scrape through minimum notability, particularly as there is some coverage from reputable sources and she has received an OAM. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing GNG and BIO. None of the current references (or any other reliable sources I could find) are specifically about her. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't done as much cleaning up of this article as I meant to, but I do note that she is reliably sourced as having received the Order of Australia, which would seem to satisfy WP:ANYBIO point 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of Order of Australia award. A "Companion" level award would probably satisfy WP:ANYBIO point 1, otherwise it is questionable especially the further down one goes in award seniority.--Rpclod (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She has the Medal (OAM), the lowest honour in the Order of Australia. It has been established multiple times that the OAM definitely does not satisfy ANYBIO. Frickeg (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Bungle. I hate the idea of paid submissions as much as anyone but a recipient of the OAM is notable, IMHO. --Ifnord (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OAM is definitely not enough for inherent notability. It is a worthy award, but a glance down the most recent list will show very clearly that it is not a suitable benchmark for notability. Frickeg (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 11:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramya NSK[edit]

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

Unclear notability. Created by paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly passes WP:ANYBIO - the subject is a recipient of Filmfare Award for Best Female Playback Singer – Tamil , a notable honour. Besides, she has about 100 songs in multiple languages to her credit. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is a notable singer in Tamil films.--UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 14:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Davis[edit]

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

Non-notable person. As CEO of a venture capital firm, Davis' name appears in news reports as a "Davis said" mention a few times, but no significant independent coverage to be found of him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim to notability outside of his company Stone Point Capital, which itself has been deleted multiple times. No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another dude who took a million dollars and made more. We are not Mangefundpedia. His company is not notable, and neither is he. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We just do not have the sources to show that Davis is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marlowe Gardiner-Heslin[edit]

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

Short, unsourced BLP that fails WP:NACTOR. BangJan1999 15:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they've had roles, but there's no indication here (or locatable anywhere else) that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to actually demonstrate that he meets any of the criteria. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is completely unsourced and so devoid of content I don't know that it even qualifies as a full stub. Independent search turns up nothing to suggest that notability is established, either under WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR; certainly no reliable sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many many actors have appeared in a movie or two in supporting roles, and maybe in three plays. That does not make him a notable actor. He also fails BLP for lack of reliable sourcing. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 8 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 23:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Strange Shadow[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:FILM. As per WP:UGC IMDB is not a reliable source to prove notability. Domdeparis (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Page has been moved to A Strange Shadow.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: A Strange Shadow Ochena Chaya Bhaskar Banerjee

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM with no substantial coverage in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NFILM with not even trivial coverage in unreliable sources. I tried. --Ifnord (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Obvious[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This does not merit an encyclopedia page. It is a popular culture expression and this page may be considered an advertisement for hotels.com. Fails GNG. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly fails WP:GNG, as it doesn't seem to be a direct topic of coverage in any reliable source. Also a clearcut violation of WP:NOT#DICT (specifically section 3. regarding slang, and idiom guides). Lastly, seemingly very much a WP:COATRACK to shoe horn in mention of a promotional campaign. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hotels.com, which has a section on the site's advertising mentioning the Captain. Although there are scraps of coverage, he's not notable independent of the parent company (some advertising mascots take on a life of their own or become important cultural figures, but not him). The expression isn't notable either, as seen when it failed the previous AfD (which was pre-mascot). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and do not redirect. This is a widely used (if poorly documented) term. It should not be specifically connected with a specific company using it in a specific commercial. On the other hand, we lack the good documentation to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I oppose the redirect under the same rationale. Unless/until that campaign gets some dominating cultural currency on the term somewhere years down the line, this is just a common (well, not common, but certainly widely known) turn of phrase. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Oppose Redirect. A redirect would be an extension of an advertising campaign. As far as keeping the article, I agree that it's more a topic for TVTropes/Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 11:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alphense Boys[edit]

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

A lower tier amateur football club in the Nederlands. No evidence of any notability, and clubs at this level have no inherent notability. An attempt at making this a redirect was thwarted, hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before this discussion is closed. Below and in the article, I have proven that Alphense Boys easily meets the WP:GNG and WP:ORG. However since the initial discussion was about the game against Montfoort in the Dutch national cup that makes Alphense Boys notable by WP:FOOTYN, I request the closing person also to undelete VV Montfoort that was unjustifiably deleted while it participated in the very same game. It is also notable by GNG and ORG and also exactly by the very same rule (FOOTYN) and highest level national soccer event. Furthermore, VV Montfoort has additional National Cup appearances and continued to additional rounds in this case. For Alphense Boys this was a rare first for a club at this level. This has to do with its "colorful" past that makes it extra well covered in the national, regional, and soccer press. gidonb (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - possible search term but non-notable. Giant Snowman 18:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per below source showing they played in national cup, meeting standard club notability requirements. Giant Snowman 17:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition, namely 2011–12 KNVB Cup. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per national cup appearance. @GiantSnowman: do you want to reconsider? Number 5 7 10:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's nowhere this could be merged as a middle ground solution? There doesn't seem likely to be enough WP:DUE content on this topic, based on coverage in WP:Reliable sources to be much justification for retention of this article. It's also worth noting, since it's been referenced, that WP:FOOTYN is an WP:Essay, not a WP:guideline or WP:Policy, meaning it has no more weight as policy direction than we would put on any one contributor's !vote in a discussion. And I doubt that national cup provision would survive community scrutiny, honestly, if you crunch the numbers and think about just how many non-notable clubs, completely uncovered by reliable sources, would then qualify for articles. However, aggregating such clubs into a handful of parent articles might be a solution you could get a fair number of editors around, though it would require some post-AfD legwork and coordination. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be quite a lot of coverage of them from a brief search on Google News. WP:FOOTYN is indeed an essay, but keeping articles based on national cup appearances is also WP:AFDP – I can't recall an AfD on a club that passed this threshold being deleted in the past 10 years, and there have been a lot of AfDs on the subject. Number 57 22:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fenix down and Number 57: do you have a source for the KNVB Cup appearance? I had a trawl through Socerway and couldn't see it? GiantSnowman 06:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @GiantSnowman: RSSSF confirms the 2011*12 appearance. Fenix down (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets FOOTYN, GNG, and ORG. This football club should never have been listed for deletion and discussion should be closed as snowball and speedy keep. gidonb (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator says he AfDd this article after changing it into a redirect was reverted! The redirect was reverted because clearly notable subjects should not be redirected out of the blue to other articles. That's plain vandalism. Subsequently AfDing such articles does not make the situation any better. It communicates a lack of respect for community conventions and a lack of research before deletion procedures. There's a long history of attempts to delete Hoofdklasse clubs from Wikipedia. All have failed. Recently one was closed as speedy keep after a clear snowball. Situation here is similar. Not one person approved this nomination! gidonb (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Especially ridiculous is the claim fails GNG without providing any detail how. Club has almost 100 years of significant coverage in the media, including in all out of all general national newspapers. Did nominator even bother to take a look at these? I wonder! gidonb (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a quick peek together:

Alphense Boys in national daily newspapers:

Alphense Boys in just a few major soccer news sources of the Netherlands

This does not yet include the historic articles in national newspapers, almost all accessible through delpher.nl, all broadcasters, all major regional newspapers through their websites and delpher, and local newspapers, accessible through their websites and regional historic databases. The idea that there would be a football club in the Hoofdklasse that does not meet the WP:GNG comes through as not very serious. gidonb (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per most of above. ClubOranje^T 07:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. McGinnis[edit]

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

Claim to notability appears to be that he had a small part in popularising a neologism. Everything else seems run of the mill and the refs don't help much - interviews, mentions etc. Nothing here establishes WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability not established. Likely an advert or an autobiography. Not notable as either "venture capitalist, author and speaker"; Wikipedia is not a speaker's bureau to help subjects book their speaking gigs. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another guy who took 10 million dollars and made more, coining a neologism along the way to further riches. We are not Managed-fund-pedia. Essentially no reliable sourcing. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Strouse[edit]

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

Very short unsourced BLP which fails WP:NACTOR. BangJan1999 14:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, even the films he has done since those listed on his page cannot save this. — Wylie pedia 02:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here to support a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search to add to the article. Alansohn (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Taylor (Brazilian musician)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that fails WP:NMG. BangJan1999 13:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Should have been BLPPRODed while has no coverage. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an unsourced BLP of a musician without a full-length CD or equivalent. Bearian (talk)
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 8 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kumar Chatterjee[edit]

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

from my POV, being one of candidates to presidential posts does not grant passing WP:POLITICIAN and I don't see any references showing passing WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined an A7 as I believe there is a claim to significance but do not see notability. In looking for info I did not find any significant coverage but did find passing mentions. ~ GB fan 13:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless somebody can write and source something more substantial than this. Being the first woman in a country's history to run for president is certainly a valid potential notability claim that can lift a non-winning candidate above the norm — but while admittedly I'm not an expert on India, from what I know the given names "Krishna" and "Kumar" are far more usually male, not female, names. So we would have to reliably source the claim as true before we could accept it as notable, because there's already a major red flag suggesting that its truth is in question. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doolphy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last nominations was by SwisterTwister closed as No-consensus where it did not even consider a part of contribution. Alas! there was no participation. Or No one even bother for this one. From last tag of notability to till date, no established anything significant for encyclopedia purpose. Article writes about features. If we even try to improve the writing, one paragraph will be left. Even after one paragraph sources does not establish Corpodepth. Reviews are covered by non-notable entities. Light2021 (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article describes the product features, along with links to several at-launch reviews. That is sufficient for basic verification but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability, by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a sales brochure, complete with 3 pricing options. Declined as a G11, but I'd say it's almost G11 so a good borderline case to bring here. Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two sources that look reasonably usable as RS:

"Project Management App Doolphy Launches; Needs to Work on its English", Gigaom, October 2010 - review with four paragraphs of independent critique of the app.
"Doolphy, otra plataforma para gestionar proyectos y tareas en grupo", w:es:Republica.com, May 2010 - review in a Spanish-language publication that seems reputable.

The founder has won awards and has other articles about him, but those articles each have only one sentence about this product, such as:

If I combine the weight of all these sources with the sources in the article, the total weight still seems borderline for notability. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources presented above qualify as independent coverage in reliable sources. These are press releases that cover the CEO or whatever this person's title is - and rely on company related sources. Also, most of the sources are one word or one line mention of this product. Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and not enough for WP:RS. This has not garnered coverage in the main stream press of any language. Wikipedia is not platform for promotion of indiscriminate product information - see WP:ISNOT. Fails WP"GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just a product brochure, complete with a list of features. Sources listed above do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial mentions do not wikipedia notability make. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 8 August 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. The only in-depth coverage is in WordPress and primary sources, such as interviews, which are not reliable for establishing notability. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources has been found. Films that may eventually take the subject past the notability bar are stated to be in production or in development, but they can't establish notability before they actually exist. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gino McKoy[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage of this individual in multiple sources. Coming in 3rd in a youth competition, and having his song briefly mentioned in a couple of media sources does not rise to the notability level of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 12:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources listed under "references and external links" represent reliable source coverage about him — they all just briefly namecheck his existence, while failing to have him as their subject — and nothing here entitles him to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG. We are not an alternative LinkedIn on which people are entitled to have articles just for existing — certain specific markers of achievement have to be attained, and certain specific standards of sourcing have to be present to support them, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The individual has received significant coverage in a number of reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject, in compliance with WP:GNG guidelines. Placement in youth compete is biographical article content and should not be taken into consideration as proof or verification of the individual’s notability as proposed by the WP:AFD nominator. The article and its contents re in compliance with WP:BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.2.183 (talk • contribs)

— 68.47.2.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If he's received significant coverage in a number of reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject, then kindly show some actual evidence of that. The "references" present in this article right now sure don't show it — he's not the subject of any of those sources, but merely has his existence namechecked within coverage of other things, which isn't what WP:GNG requires. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I am unable to find in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. gongshow talk 00:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The included references provide secondary sources of biographical information and also directly reference the individual’s original creative endeavors and are in compliance with the subject criteria. Included references meet requirements for significant coverage not requiring original research, are reliable secondary sources and are independent of the subject. WP:GNG stipulates that the subject is not required to be the main topic of the source material. This individual's notability is not temporary; references span from 2006 to present. WP policies stipulate that fame or infamy is not to be considered as an inclusion requirement. As for meeting or not meeting WP:MUSICBIO at this time the information included in the article can be considered as biographical and not necessarily subject to those requirements as individual meets other inclusion criteria. As the article cannot be unilaterally excluded due the subject's meeting of other criteria, the article should remain. — Preceding Nerdbyte comment added by Nerdbyte (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does state that a person does not need to be the main subject of a source, true — but it also states that a person does still have to be more than simply mentioned in a source that contains no substantive or useful information about him at all besides that mention of his name. That's what you're missing here. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wp:Too soon. I'm on the fence about his current notability but if the future pans out as it looks like in the article then, at that point, subject will easily cross into notability. --Ifnord (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my prior comments. My evaluation of the sources shows that more than one provide a substantive bio of the individual, including personal background history and profession. The article outlines his background in music and film, leading up to current involvement and corroborates with individuals and relationships to whom his relationships can be cross-referenced. Articles also document the history of his production company as well as office locations and project slate. An original composition is used as key a point of comparison of music as leveraged in context to audience perception of athletic players in a college textbook which was published a decade ago. Sources referencing his creative endeavors include project budget, timeline, cast and crew, distribution rights, all of which speak directly to his role as producer of these films and outlining his involvement as screenwriter. News dating back to 2006 corroborates his role as composer and musician. The second bio written specifically about him outlines in more detail his creative involvement in referenced projects; thus he is the primary subject of more than one reference and as the subject of the articles refer directly to his involvement in his industry, it absolutely qualifies as more than a passing mention. The articles in which he is the primary subject substantiate and support the other references as his role is clearly outlined. Once more, as he meets more notability requirements than he does not, I cannot vote in favor of deletion. Nerdbyte (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources present in the article that provide a substantive bio of McKoy are WordPress blogs and primary sources, which are not types of sourcing that assist in demonstrating or building notability at all. Exactly zero of the reliable sources present in the article do anything more than namecheck his existence within coverage of something else. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 10 August 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. While commenting that pages have to be "trashed" might be a bit too harsh, consensus is clear that this person's notability has not been established. So Why 20:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Fayaz Buriro[edit]

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

the subject received some press mentions (namechecking) but i believe they are not enough to pass WP's notability requirement. it was previously created at Amar Fayaz.. Saqib (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails to meet general notability guideline. Most publicity appears to have been self-generated. --Failosopher (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 21:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable language engineer, there are references in Pakistan's leading newspapers about his services. Recently Sindh Graduate Association a Sindh Government funded organization has awarded him Gold medal on his services. --Indusian1236 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are references in Pakistani newspapers, please provide here to establish the notability. The medal by Sindh Graduate Association is non-notable as well. --Saqib (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amar Fayaz Buriro is Sindhi and urdu writer and he is wel known language engineer of Sindhi and Urdu languages. He had recently developed Sindhi OCR and auto tagging system. --Thaheem Ubed (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Saqib! I appreciate your reservations. But You know mostly Pakistani newspaper websites are image based, but here I am mentioning some text based references where you can easily find the Amar Fayaz Buriro's work where even minister and senator of Pakistan senate have praised his services. Moreover Amar Fayaz has been writing several articles and researches on language development and engineering. Here I am submitting some links:

It is mentioned here that above links are just newspaper & magazine links. Therefore I will really thankful to you that please may terminate the deletion tag from article. Secondly Sindh Graduates Association is the wel-reputable organization of the Pakistan. They award only 4 Gold medals in a year, and in education and language development they had awarded him this medal. Regards and Thanks in advance. --Indusian1236 (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of above sources are not RS, while RS such as Dawn, The News, Express Tribune only name check the subject. --Saqib (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib, It is humble request that please may keep this article. As I have requested that in Pakistan 90% newspapers are online in image based. Therefore please may consider this request. Regards --Indusian1236 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly no notability for the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is my earnest request that please keep this article because there are various references available on the article page. Ok I may delete writer/blogger words from the article. But he is notable language engineer. I request again. --Indusian1236 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK dears... I respect your decision. You may delete. I have raised my hands. Regards. I love and respect Wikipedia... The resource of knowledge and wisdom. --Indusian1236 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But if possible please let it alive on wikipedia for one month. After one month you may delete it. This is my request. --Indusian1236 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, the page has to be trashed soon. --Saqib (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok dear Saqib go on plz. Stay blessed. Regards --Indusian1236 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deeply troubling, for me, to see a vote which wants to see an article "trashed soon". This process should be in good faith, certainly not personal. Non-English references are hard to track, many appear above. I vote notable enough. --Ifnord (talk) 22:04, 9 August 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 Draftify. Moved to Draft:Informational Development. So Why 20:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Informational Development[edit]

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

Does not read like a neutral presentation of the views of reliable sources, but partly like an opinion essay and partly like a blurb for a governmental program. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it is clearly an essay like structure with sources thrown in to support specific point. Overall topic doesn't seem to be notable, as presented here, even if various aspects of it might be. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NEXIST for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a work in progress, and rather requires more research. A point about controversy in Africa, where resources could be better spent on basic living will be added soon. It was a mistake that it was published so soon, and normally it should have gone to sandbox. I'll also search for some community initiatives and roles of NGO. Perhaps listing by State fell short of the point. Thanks for your efforts. --PasswordDoesNotGoHere (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author appears to be proposing draftification, which is fine with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per PasswordDoesNotGoHere's comment above. Also, the topic is notable and covered in reliable sources, as evidenced particularly from searches in Google Scholar, as well as some coverage in Google Books and News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I don't have a problem with this... Seems like a good solution in this case. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevni Bai[edit]

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

No source. Search produces nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Jung[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An actress does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because she's had a role — her role in Kim's Convenience was a minor guest appearance in two episodes, not a main character, and we have no way to know whether she's playing a major or minor character in Jigsaw since the casting has been announced but the plot and characters aren't known at all yet. For an actress to be considered notable just for having had roles, she has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — but exactly zero reliable sources about her are being shown here, since the sourcing consists of her IMDb profile, an alumni profile on the website of her own alma mater, and a casting announcement for Jigsaw which just namechecks her existence while failing to contain even one word of content about her besides her name. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to get an actress into Wikipedia. No prejudice against recreation if and when the sourcing can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above minor role. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 3 August 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) 14:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Canadian first ministers[edit]

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

Unreferenced and unnecessary ~~WP:LISTCRUFT~~. Links to provincial/territorial lists duplicate Template:Canadian First Ministers, and short blurbs about x province/territory are pointless when we have "List of premiers of x," "Premier of x," "Politics of x," "History of x," and just plain "x" articles. Madg2011 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is referenced right now but I wouldn't think LISTCRUFT "indiscriminate or trivial lists" applies to this effort to provide a overview of prime ministerial history per Canadian jurisdiction. Is this not in a main article somewhere? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Listcruft isn't exactly the right concept here but I think the idea holds. This article has an information component, which is covered with more depth in numerous other articles, and a list component, which duplicates the list found in the Template at the bottom of all relevant articles. It doesn't provide "a overview of prime ministerial history," it provides links to a list for each province and, for some provinces, a very short summary of that province's political history. It barely touches on the actual history of first ministers or the history of the role of first minister. I don't think there's any encyclopedic value here. Madg2011 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose all the provincial histories, if referenced, could be used to flesh out Premier (Canada)#Role. In fact that main article isn't very long and needs some TLC and expansion, anyway. It's pretty ahistorical right now, and readers might benefit from some of the information that's currently in this list. And of course there is no federal content in the nominated article to worry about, anyway. So, while it's easier to say than do, I'd suggest merging relevant referenced content to Premier (Canada). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see this as particularly useful as constituted; each of the positions already has a standalone article at Prime Minister of Canada or "Premier of [Province/Territory]" which delves into the history in a lot more detail than the blurbs present here — which is precisely why fully half the sections here consist solely of a "see also" link to the main article with no additional content beyond that. I agree that it's not exactly listcruft per se, but I also agree that it's not exactly useful per se either. Bits of content here might possibly be salvageable by transferring them to the more relevant articles, but there's very little genuinely substantive need for it to be presented in this form. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not quite work as "list of lists" article and contains a bunch of unsourced original research. WP:LISTN fail as the topic has not received sufficient attention from independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:04, 1 August 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. So Why 19:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Wo Commercial Centre[edit]

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

Unremarkable back-alley office building of which there are hundreds, if not thousands in Hong Kong. References to a famous tea house having stood on the site or SYS having walked down the street where the building now stands do not sufficiently establish notability of the structure there today. The article may also be viewed somewhat promotional for the building, especially since there is some weight on its location, "famous" shops nearby, walking directions from public transport as well as purchase agreements for office space as reference. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable building, does not meet WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being a run of the mill commercial establishment. Notability is not inherited from a famous street to a business located thereon. In a large, international city, about 1 street per 50,000 inhabitants is notable, and in every old neighborhood, no doubt many famous or infamous incidents have happened in the past. The claims on this page are spammy to the point of being farcical. President Obama once lived in my election district - who the hell cares? Bearian (talk) 19:05, 9 August 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. The consensus was, when all the promotional content had been trimmed out, that the article was a fallow description of itself with little encyclopedic value. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PizzaRev[edit]

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

I thought I could remove the advertising from this one (two separate listings of pizza ingredients, and their two brilliant innovation of letting the customers wait in line,and letting them choose what they want on their pizza. But there's nothing left but PR and notices . DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I created this article in March 2015. Here is a link to the last significant edit I performed on the article in April 2015. Notice how this version does not have a promotional tone, and is neutrally-written based upon what reliable sources state about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. See my comment above for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the promotionalism outweighs any good, and this is because this is what the article was before removing the spam (1-24 sources counted, and now after: 1-17 so it hardly helped), but it's still promotional so it violates our WP:Five pillars of having non-promotional articles; copyediting is not what actually help here if it only sugarcoats the promotionalism instead of actually resolving it. GNG quotes that we need independent coverage, not simply secondhand press releases, see Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources or passing mention". Worse, it seems we were taken advantage of since 1, 2 and 3 accounts so far added advertising. Sections 1 and 3 are advertising through and through and the middle section is basically sourced to the company's own menu website, so it cannot satisfy WP:ORGIND and WP:CORP. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could the post-relist discussion consider why we should or shouldn't revert to the suggested revision by North America? Please bear in mind that promotional tone in an article is not a valid argument for deleting an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, to quote WP:Notability, we need proven evidence the article can be improved, and in the last week of AfD's occurrence, none has happened, and I took the liberty of searching sources, to only find this and this; because the listed sources are only announcements or notices, that wouldn't be the evidence of independent reliable coverage independent of the subject, therefore mainspace is not the place to host such content. What WP:Notability also says is that articles must exist with no concerns in WP:What Wikipedia is not, the nomination here has cited WP:What Wikipedia concerns.SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cllgbksr The GNG itself says A topic is presumed notable if it is not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia is not, but since the current article is an advertisement (a violation of WP:Promotion) and, not only have I shown examples above but 2 other users have also, how can this promotion concern be addressed by our policy? SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article again, the only thing that might come across as promotional is the "Fare and operations" section. If that section was removed it would come across as simply informative. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As stated in my comment atop this discussion, a version of the article is available that does not have a promotional tone (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The easy evidence showing this article exists only for advertising is: (from the current article) The first PizzaRev location was....A second location opened....Pizza opened its first location....The first international location....Fares include....customers can have....a minority stakeholder.... All of this is in immediate and unquestionable violation of WP:Not catalog: Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and it wouldn't matter if they're verified facts, if they're still catalog information. WP:Not catalog is enough, and in the 2 weeks of AfD here, there haven't been any founded counterarguments showing the unapprovable article can actually be improved oncee an for all. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I tend to agree with SwisterTwister, a quick glance in google shows a majority stake was acquired by a former McDonalds CEO led fund, so the potential for improvement is there.^[1]

References

^ Maze, Jonathan (May 22, 2017). "Fund started by former McDonalds CEO acquires PizzaRev".

CV9933 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what policy in this based in, compared to the Delete votes above which are? A simple stake is simply not enough for Notability here. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The various references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The references are either company announcements about a new restaurant opening or expansion plans. This review is probably acceptable as it is independently written. If another reference that meets the criteria can be found, I'll gladly change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a smallish chain with no claim of significance. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and consist of routine announcements and trivial mentions. The article has an advertorial tone and even includes a section on "Franchising". Wikipedia is not a franchisee prospectus or a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record, I want to add to my argument against the WP:GNG. In the "Notability" section, it clarifies what exaclty presumed signifies, and it's: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for [WP:What Wikipedia is not]. Simply asserting "Meets GNG" is a different argument than actually showing and finally showing how the article was improved. Compare the articles pre-nomination and post-nomination. If an article was as easily improvable, I myself would've volunteered but, since there's no meaningful substance to be found in the simplest searches here, I couldn't guarantee I'd make the article satisfy WP:GNG after all. Even then, I weighed the amount of news and what's available actually fits what WP:GNG itself later says: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Publication in a reliable source is not a good indication of notability. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Therefore, WP:GNG itself says articles must be in acceptable condition to not only be considered and weighed, but to have any viable chances. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go easier on using bold - it makes the text difficult to read and understand. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references are poor, some appear to be based on press release, obvious promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I truly respect the oppose arguments here, whether bolded or not, which I alluded to in my Keep statement. I came to this article because it had a few unintentional list defined reference errors as a result of promotional material being removed. Normally I would have just fixed those but the article was also tagged for deletion which brought me here. I don’t really know much about pizza, let alone care for it; I can count the pizza chains that I know on the fingers of one hand. I want to avoid the argument other stuff exists, but we have over 100 US pizza chain articles alone and pizza chain articles in 23 countries worldwide. I find a substantial amount (read most) of them to have equivalent or lesser quality references than this article. In my view, this observation confers a precedent of general notability and actually with the promotional element removed I don't see an issue with this article. CV9933 (talk) 16:40, 7 August 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. If any of the early "keep" !voters would like the text moved to userspace, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura-Ioana Andrei[edit]

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

This article was deleted back in 2015 because of no notability. She fails NSPORT and Tennis Project Guidelines. Now it's brought back in 2017 and she has done nothing in the interim. No WTA main draws. No minor league ITF wins. Only a couple victories at the lowest level of minor/minor league. Tennis Project Guidelines are pretty inclusive (most say too inclusive). Get into a main draw of a WTA event, play in Fed Cup, win a Grand Slam tournament as a jr, win a minor league ($50,000+) event. But playing and winning minor-minor league events is nothing. This player has done nothing notable in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see a challenged PROD in the article history, but not an actual deletion discussion or deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in 2015. It was brought back the other day for some unknown reason. I don't see that this person does meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG at all. This aren't even minor league tennis events... they are minor-minor league. The lowest of the low. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google News search results alone indicate WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. Those google results are almost exclusively for lists of appearances or scores. That is not GNG. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in your opinion. Let's hear from other editors. Hmlarson (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Fyunck(click)'s opinion, it's a wikipedia guideline.T v x1 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I had this undeleted recently because the article is listed at WP:WANTED (due to the large number of incoming links). Of course non-administrators such as myself cannot see what's in a deleted article until it is undeleted and this one turned out to be not particularly impressive. But I still lean keep because of the number of redlinks created by deletion does not improve the encylopedia (I know that's not an orthodox keep reason but hey, WP:NORULES). ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's backwards. We are not supposed to create red-links for non-notable entities. Red links are for notable things that need to be created. And as you write this many of those red links have been eliminated by me, with more to come. She is not notable for anything tennis related. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links re-instated to active article, Laura-Ioana Andrei:

Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great more backwards stuff. Article deleted for two years and we don't get to the red links, and now you revert the ones I fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The tennis project is extremely inclusive, so if a subject does not meet that |project's notability guideline nor Wikipedia's GNG, it's crystal that we should not have an article on that subject. Also, doesn't this fall under WP:G4? T v x1 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. This was WP:PRODDED, not sent to WP:AFD so there was never a deletion discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Also fails NTENNIS. And what is this "strong delete", "weak keep" etc.? There only should be votes like "Keep" or "Delete" (Gabinho^>:) 20:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Gabinho: Because this is a discussion not a vote. Any additional information participants can provide about their position can help us more readily reach a WP:CONSENSUS. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS. All these discussions about whether the subject specific guidelines matter at all is irrelevant, because she doesn't meet them. If evidence were demonstrated that she met them, I would reconsider. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for tennis players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Citations only show basic coverage of tournament results.--Wolbo (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would be very interested which cites Hmlarson thinks satisfied the GNG, because none in the article do. Any Keep vote here seems more by way of a kneejerk "OMG I see sources it must be notable!!" than any actual examination of them. Ravenswing 17:41, 9 August 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. Timtempleton's rewrite of the article was not challenged. If any of the early "delete" !voters still disagree, a second AfD can be raised; I would rather than happened than this article continually sit with an AfD tag on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formation 8[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- the references are just routine announcements. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with deletion -- iantolee (who initially wrote this page)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as easily looking around here found nothing but clearly labeled announcements, notices and all that, which can't be used as by WP:NPOV, WP:CORP and WP:N, so whether there's 20 or 40 of them, it's not significant. The differences between this and this are quite few, so it's not confident for notability, especially if it's simply an WP:Indiscriminate list. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not substantive RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Zppix. The sources are completely inadequate for either establishing notability or verifying claims. DrStrauss talk 20:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just added some new info. The firm was widely considered to be one of the most successful venture capital firms in Silicon Valley before abruptly dissolving in 2015, which might be why you didn't find info. They were returning a shocking 95% rate of return to their funds. Wikipedia is very weak on VC articles, largely because many of them shun the spotlight. I've done a couple of articles (Toba Capital, Silversmith Capital Partners) to fill this gap - let's not delete this one and take a step back. There's more work to be done to source the partners and where they went next - I didn't have time for that because I felt the clock was ticking on this. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to relist, given the new info I found? I see that nobody has changed their votes, despite this having been a near USD$1B hedge fund that was massively successful. Am I allowed to relist or am I blocked because I participated in the vote? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timtempleton's analysis. The firm received significant coverage in reliable sources in this 2013 article and this 2015 article from Fortune, this article from Business Insider, and this article from Reuters. The firm passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging deletion participants: DGG (talk · contribs), Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs), Zppix (talk · contribs), DrStrauss (talk · contribs), Iantolee (talk · contribs) to see if the coverage Cunard and I found changes their votes. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nutcache[edit]

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

A typical company made by people. Nothing notable or significant about it, no sources are notable. used wikipedia to create profile or directory. Light2021 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the existing sources seem borderline as reliable third-party sources. For example, business.com article has a named author independent of Nutcache, and the publication has editors. I found an enterpreneur.com article with coverage of Nutcache probably usable as RS. So that's not enough yet, but maybe somebody else can find more. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Update: looking at the revision history, looks like it's only had one major contributor and they have only contributed to this article and other articles that have been deleted as promotional, so I can assume less good faith here; I've updated my vote to delete. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. DrStrauss talk 09:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources are blogs, trivial mentions and / or WP:SPIP, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a private company going about its business, no encyclopedic relevance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Staci Kim[edit]

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

Probable autobiography (~~created and~~ mostly edited by Jonathankim1971 that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No sign of significant coverage in independent sources and article claims he is "best known" for role as shopkeeper who has an orange stolen from him. Being best known for a very limited role in an indie film is not " significant roles in multiple notable films" as the standard asks. The Village Voice citation is unverifiable as given and the probable actual target[17] doesn't mention the actor. The New York Times citation is similarly missing and a search of the Times (including archives) finds no matches. Other searches similarly empty but for IMDB page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Edited to correct article history claim. Apologies Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Insufficiently sourced, written primarily by the subject. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. I've also asked for a block of the self-promotional account. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and the NYTimes reference is obviously fake. Dammitkevin (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not fake, just dead. I added a link from Internet Archive.--Auric talk 21:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Auric found the probably intended target for the NYT reference I called "missing" above and it is not a Times article but a rebranded slurp from All-Movie Guide. This does not add to the subject's notability, but thanks to Auric for finding it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kids" reference does mention him, but just as a credit.--Auric talk 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 20:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently sourced. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 22:34, 7 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Organization Project[edit]

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

not independently notable -- possibly a mention in the article on James E. Grunig is appropriate, but that article itself has some major problems DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources do not establish notability for this project. The purpose of the article appears to promotional in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Angus (explorer)[edit]

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

Alongside Julie Angus.

This one is tough. It was previously PROD'd[18] as questionable notability, and the PROD was removed because "he is published by Random House". There was also a previous AfD, which was deleted (not the article, but the AfD itself was deleted for lack of participation).

The claim of Colin's notability is that he performed the first human-powered global circumnavigation, but many disagree that what he did qualifies as circumnavigation. Most claims in the article cannot be attributed to a reliable source. Sources provided include blog posts from a race, Coverage from 2 man boat trip, more 2 man boat trip, an article written for the Globe and Mail (not independent).

The subject has done several documentaries for National Geographic, written several books, and won the National Geographic Adventurer of the Year Award in 2007.

I think it's a case of WP:BLP1E. menaechmi (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although maybe consider merging Colin Angus with Julie Angus). The references in the article almost all fail WP:RS but there is other coverage: CBC[19], Boston Globe[20], Kirkus[21], Publishers Weekly[22], Vancouver Sun[23], Toronto Star[24]. It's questionable if it's one event as they also have book reviews and coverage of other things they have done, but even if that was the case, in the absence of an obvious name for an event, and based on the fact that they're at least as well known as any event, WP:ONEEVENT allows an article on the person rather than the event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In particular I found persuasive indications of notability in the 'Recognition' section. PK T(alk) 18:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be sufficient news articles to demonstrate notability (though that Recognition section is almost entirely unsourced, so I don't see how it can be considered "persuasive"). However, I question the "explorer" tag. "Author", or "adventurer" or "media personality" would seem more reasonable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks everyone who participated, it's pretty clear this passes I thought it would be a little closer. Thanks again. menaechmi (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew T. Heath[edit]

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

Page was created by a political candidate's publicist without acknowledged WP:COI after notice, many unsourced peacock claims, clear WP:PROMO use, WP:GNG questionable, issues with links in article. All this was addressed to the creator but she shows no signs of returning to address it after a week. If this stays it needs a serious rewrite so as not to be a campaign advert. JamesG5 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a resume for a political candidate...fails simplest of WP:GNG standards.Cllgbksr (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some state executive branch positions are notable, but I am not sure state budget director makes the list. The article lacks indepth sourcing. If Heath wins the appeals court election in 2018, he might be notable, but even that I am not sure of. State Supreme Court judges are notable, what lower US state court judges are notable is hard to say. I think in general lots of good sources focused on the judge, and not just rulings handed down by the judge would be key. Heath clearly is not notable, and even if he were this article is too biased to make it worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 4 August 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. Closing as a "soft delete" per the no quorum rationale. Malinaccier (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yana GoodDay[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC - can see nothing about her being a philosopher. Edwardx (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't established TarHealer (talk) 04:05, 8 August 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. So Why 19:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarix Aliyev[edit]

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

Struggling to see why he might be notable, apart from something about his personal life. Lots of "awards", but none sounds significant. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a resume, and if so, I remind the gentle reader that we are not a web host. I also note that at AfD we almost always delete producers' articles because they are so often so run of the mill. I don't see any reliable sources on this page, but do correct me if I am in error. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. A few searches for any substantial third-party coverage does not turn anything up that would qualify Aliyev as a notable producer under the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 17:16, 9 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Khan[edit]

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

No real claim for notability made. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Created by an account that was blocked for spam. The whole article smells promo with no sources. The article of his son Sarosh Khan is also just promo and the proposed deletion message was deleted with even more unsourced promo. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball League of Canada mascots[edit]

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

This article has been orphaned for two years with no real place that could direct to this. Appears to violate WP:LISTN as miscellaneous about all teams in a minor basketball league, a subject that is not reported on anywhere as a group or a set. Individual teams will discuss their own mascots, but very rarely others, meaning this appears to have been a subject created by the author. (Although each mascot could be discussed on the individual team pages themselves.) Because of the subject, I could not determine a suitable redirect (but it is orphaned, so the redirect would also not be used at this time). Probably fails WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE mentions of the mascots in general. Yosemiter (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody, other than their teams, pays any attention to minor league mascots. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These mascots simply aren't notable. Rikster2 (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no need for a list of these mascots. They *could* be mentioned in each team's articles, but a quick check of a few of them indicates they're not even included in those articles. PK T(alk) 18:49, 2 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esi Ansah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 1 August 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. Like often with notability, the discussion here focused on whether the sources established sufficient notability, with editors disagreeing whether coverage is substantial or not. Minor concerns, such as violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY were not echoed by others. In the end, there is no consensus what to do with this article at this point. So Why 20:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Certified Burgers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

'Delete and Salt, promotional advertising in and out, and let's look at the sources summarized: 1 is a local business article about an announcement with 2 closely following this example, 3 is the company's own overview, 4 is an Indiscriminate list of information on a yearly "guide", 5 is once again a company announcement but published elsewhere, 6 is back to the beginning with a local business article about the company's own pleasing words, 7 is once again a guide but in a local TV station this time, and 8 is simply another Indiscriminate local news story about a local event of interest. Now, to actually look deeper into the words:

"[Founder] wanted to source the best quality beef for burgers....his own personal philosophy....He found....He picked up the phone....become fast friends....[He] talks animately about his family and his work....his cattle are treated with the utmost respect....", "[He] emigrated from Canada....love of that lifestyle....pursuing his masters from Oregon State University....it was on Christmas Day morning he met his wife....", "is a build-your-own burger concept....Sides include....Ingredients include..." (as Indiscriminate as it gets if it's simply a republished menu", "all-natural, fully traceable Angus beef....high-end toppings like....Besides build-your-own burger options, include also....[Company] says they cater to....customers....if you let them know....[Prices are] $4.99....$6.49....$7.99....[or also]....5.99....6.49, choose your bread....cheese and toppings that start at $1", (these are not only immediate violations of WP:What Wikipedia, WP:Promotion, WP:Indiscriminate, WP:Not webhost and WP:Not guide, but it carries nothing but self-serving company words)

I could obviously go on there but searches find symmetrical images to this here and here, but it's clear they're all personally made profiles and not the actual material needed here for WP:CORP and it's simply not possible to ever consider a menu, wherever published, to actually be independent. WP:Deletion policy begins with do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed....Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The necessary need for Salting is the past 3 deletions, all varied from AfD (2008), G11 (2014 and 2017); mainspace is not the place for hosting such repeats and certainly not when an AfD from 9 years concluded the same consensus; note that the 2014 version is what was deleted this month, therefore the 2014 AfD is no longer relevant. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is worthy to note that the previous AfD discussion for the article resulted in a keep result. Also of note is that this present version of the article does not have a promotional tone whatsoever. Below is the verbatim content of the present article body (link). The article is not promoting the company, is not encouraging consumers to do business with the company, and is not extolling any subjective descriptors of the company. The article is not "promotional advertising in and out". Pinging all participants from the last AfD discussion, except for one, who is now indefinitely blocked: @Johnny Au, Andrew Davidson, and Gongshow: North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Certified Burgers is a Canadian restaurant chain franchise that purveys hamburgers and other quick service restaurant fare. It is based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and was founded in 2004. It had 30 locations in 2013, and opened its first store in the United States in 2015 in Elmwood Village, Buffalo, New York. The company uses sustainably-sourced beef.

Delete as stated in my 2014 nomination. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A chain of 30-ish locations is pretty notable, and the article that I can see today is quite un-promotional. It's better to keep an article about this chain and manage its changes over time, than to simply delete it outright. PK T(alk) 19:02, 2

Keep (on the weaker side). Meets WP:AUD per coverage in National Post and CTV News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we've never considered the number of chain locations into notability at all and "manage its changes over time" is not a guarantee we'll get the policy-backed changes needed here, and that's actually listed at WP:CORP: brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued and routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops" are not factors in notability, and this should be no different whatever there is to say about the company. As for the sources, they're all still announcements or notices, and this is exactly what they say:
the company won the contract
deal made good business sense for the city

This article is actually not in-depth about the company but about its business practices in a specific locale. Next, we also have the other one:

meat department....store-made pork breakfast sausages....food colouring....bakery pumped out multi-coloured bagels...."
Ace Bakery and Hero Certified Burgers teamed up with....sampling the pink bun...."

None of that is actually in-depth about the business itself, but about its food products and its concepts, that cannot be significant coverage for what WP:Notability needs. When all we have are few pieces of minor coverage or for its specific trade industry, it shows there's either barely anything about the company itself or the company is actually responsible for what's noticed, either of which is not what an encyclopedia is. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there were some promotional problems in the article that got speedied a week ago, the tone was entirely repairable and far from egregiously promotional, and valid sources that fully supported a WP:CORP pass were present in it — so it should have been flagged for cleanup, not deleted outright. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I updated their franchise count - it's now almost 60, they've doubled in three years. Doing a search uncovers numerous sources, some lists of best burgers, some passing mentions, yet also some in-depth coverage which hasn't made it into the article yet: Canadian Business Journal [[25]], Canadian Business [[26]] (they seem to be having a problem with their style sheet), Advisor.ca [[27]], foodserviceandhospitality.com [[28]] etc. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis - Timtempleton Actually the first source offered is only a local business journal which cannot be accepted by WP:CORP, see: routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,, routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention. Also, to analyze the second one, it's a local "food guide" and the third is a "top 10" list. To closely analyze these sources, I found:
"Since the grand opening of that first location....with a tasty food menu that adheres....sustainable....from start to finish....the owner says....he started taking the helm of his own business....[It's] is a quick service restaurant chain....[He] and his team have devised a....[Sustainable practices].... is of critical importance to Lettieri and Hero Certified Burgers....Fare includes hamburgers and veggie burgers,....only fresh cut....fries, and offers real cheese....100% Heritage Angus Beef....beef contains no preservatives or additives....The beef is seasoned....Vegetarian and gluten-free options are a big part....genuine concern about the quality of food their customers eat, [they]....[he]believes it is essential that consumers know....believes it is essential that consumers know....creating this unique space among others....soups and side auxiliary dishes....keep a focus on....primary food....that are now being sold....grow [company] at a pace that will not impede or compromise quality....[Founder] is keen to see....people understanding [they are]....doing for the health and well-being of those [consumers]....allocates prominent importance on building long-term relationships with suppliers....Visit [heroburgers.com] (this one literally ends with the company website after finishing with a "company overview", that is classic public relations, and we're not a webhost for it)
"Smokey turkey, Gouda, tomato, lettuce. ....Sandwich was served on a wooden cutting board....Canada’s Hero Certified Burgers....better-quality meat,....Toronto’s Hero Certified Burgers.... (this one literally only mentions them twice and, once, it's only for their menu, thus not independent significant reliable coverage; instead this article was about the concept of businesses overall)
"[Company] presents five patty possibilities, five cheeses, five buns....offers chicken, salmon and turkey.... (That's all! It was simply to advertise their ingredients, thus violating WP:Not guide)

Lastly, when have we ever accepted an article that began with "a tasty menu" or a detailed "food menu"? That wouldn't ever satisfy WP:NPOV, WP:Not guide, WP:Now how-to or WP:NOT. Or worse when all of that is next a "unique space" which is subject to question since that's not what an encyclopedia publishes. Also, we must consider the important factors in what WP:GNG actually says: 'The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for [WP:What Wikipedia is not]. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It's not excluded under WP:What Wikipedia is not. Tim, anything that had such flashy words such as what their menu offered and what ingredients used, or what methods they use, is clearcut not independent and in fact emphasizes the quoted highlight above: "promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". Also see what WP:GNG says in its "Common circumstances" section:

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article....Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received

So, as by this, we couldn't possibly take an article that begins with "[They] have tasty food" since it's not only non-encyclopedic-, but also it's subject to question on one's own individual likings or choices. It's also worth noting that the earlier Keeps themselves either acknowledged visible concerns in the article or that there wasn't enough to make it acceptable yet; as by what WP:GNG says: Articles must be in acceptable condition, not a presumed one. Next, we also have the clear fact it has not only been deleted including by CSD Speedy, but by AfD several years ago. There's been a long time, since that 2014 AfD Keep closure, that the article could've been improved, but it was in fact Speedy Deleted as G11 in our Deletion policy. How could we possibly consider any other alternative but that this would need fundamental rewriting in order to be accepted here? SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to wear me out. The closing editor can decide on the merits of the article and its sources. 4 of the last 5 votes were keep, and a wall of text. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– Cherry-picked quotes from news articles does not represent the full perspective and content of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant restaurant chain in Canada. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the equivalent of WP:IT'S NOTABLE but what would be the solutions on the listed concerns above or by what policy? SwisterTwister talk 16:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. upon removal of advertising, there;s nothing left but a directory listing. The policy for that is nOT DIRECTORY, and supersedes notability guideline--we don't make directory entries for anything--there has to at least be possible non-promotional content for an article, and if there is, nobody has found it DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any advertising. All the info comes directly from the sources, which are all reliable mainstream media publications. It's hard to prove notability without including the notable things that journalists are writing about them. The sources are independent, so it meets WP:ORGIND. Coverage is not trivial, so it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage is national (for Canada - Toronto & Montreal, and technically international if you count Buffalo), so it meets WP:AUD.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing how it passes WP:CORPDEPTH, although I admit it's pretty close. I'm also a bit confused as this article says it was created in July 2017, but the last AfD was in 2014. What's up with that?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article was created earlier and deleted, and then recreated and kept. You can see the AfD history in the box on the top right. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD discussion for the article resulted in a keep result. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not establish Notability and Depth coverage. Media is merely a Press coverage made for company. It is advertising, and does not serve encyclopedic purpose. Agree to above Delete rationale. Note: "Found 1 potential duplicate vote" Light2021 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the preceding comment means about a potential duplicate vote, but Light2021 has been indef blocked so we'd have to ask him on his talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if barely. I just added a source that mentions the Buffalo location's closure, if tangentially, so there is non-promotional coverage of the chain out there. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:40, 10 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Azam[edit]

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

No coverage whatsoever. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable construction company. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:44, 1 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madina Sugar Mills[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, the company has actually received minimal coverage in a few reliable sources, but they are all passing mentions. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zishan Engineers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Looks to be promotional stuff. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Notability not established; just a company going about its business. Deleted twice in 2009 & 2010 and then accepted at AfD in 2012. The article is 100% promo, so I would have said "G11" if it were not for AfC (I'm not sure if it makes it speedy-ineligible, or not). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and prevent re-creation. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 7 August 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. The only delete !vote after David Eppstein's rewrite clearly didn't read the article as it currently stands and the previous delete !votes no longer apply to the current article. So Why 20:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fei-Yue Wang[edit]

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

This article has been something of a problem: It is created and maintained by a SPA, and has been twice deleted (once for copyright violation) before being recreated. Sourcing is a major problem, and the subject falls very short of WP:GNG requirements. Perhaps it is time for this to be deleted and salted. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a fellow of IEEE and AAAS (WP:PROF#C3). But the two previous deletions were because it was copied and pasted from his CV (WP:CSD#G12) and this may need permanent protection to keep the SPA from turning it back into a CV again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IEEE has more than 400,000 members, so being one of that very large crowd does not warrant standalone Wikipedia biographical coverage. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the difference between a fellow and a member, you shouldn't be involved in deletion discussions of academics. The number of new IEEE fellows in any year is limited to 0.1% of the total membership, and the level of accomplishment needed to attain this distinction is generally well above that needed for a full professorship at a good research university. That's why WP:PROF specifically calls this out as one of its criteria for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is a guideline, not an editorial rule, and the page itself says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The argument you are making is that every IEEE fellow deserves a Wikipedia article, even if there is no sourcing whatsoever to back up any other evidence of notability. This article appears to be either self-promotion by the professor or an overactive display of promotion by one of his students or peers. In none of its multiple forms has it ever come close to standard WP:GNG or WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the content in an article fails to establish notability of the subject. That is simply a matter of improving the article if the subject is notable. What we are concerned with in a notability AFD is whether or not the subject is notable, regardless of what is in the article. See WP:ARTN Meters (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:GNG and WP:BIO are guidelines, so your "WP:PROF is a guideline" appears to be content-free. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:VERIFY is policy and there is no verification that this guy has accomplished anything that is notable. Wefihe (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IEEE and AAAS fellowships are very easily verifiable, if you would only take the effort to look for sources yourself as WP:BEFORE requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terrible article as it stands and initially I thought he failed WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC, but he was a keynote speaker at this year's IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium http://iv2017.org/keynote-speakers/ His bio there says "He was the Founding Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems from 1995 to 2000, the Series on Intelligent Control and Intelligent Automation from 1996 to 2004, and IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems from 2006 to 2008, and the EiC of IEEE Intelligent Systems from 2009 to 2012. Currently, he is the EiC of IEEE Transactions on ITS. " With verification this would be sufficient to pass point 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Meters (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quoting from a convention schedule is not the way to source an encyclopedia article. There are no independent sources to verify who this guy is or what he has done that is so special. A total failure of the WP:VERIFY policy. Wefihe (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't propose using the convention bio as a source. I said "with verification" Meters (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, where's the verification? Guess what? There is none. And you don't need to be an IEEE member or fellow to figure that out. Wefihe (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ a BLP with no reliable references (the only reference is a link to a Google Scholar search). The subject may be notable if the article is improved, but as-is the article should be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see see WP:ARTN. It's not whether the article currently demonstrates his notability, it's whether the subject is notable. He appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Meters (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! WP:NACADEMIC clearly states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Where are the reliable sources to verify this guy makes the cut? Wefihe (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out there on the net, if you would only take the effort to look for them. They are in no way required to already be in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better idea: you look for them. After all, you are claiming that these sources exist, so get off your rump and find them. Without verified reliable sources, this article has no value here. Wefihe (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as a post-script - UA News from the University of Arizona is not a verifiable source. That's marketing material from the school's public relations office; Wang worked at the school, so there is a huge conflict of interest. That should not be allowed in the article - and, for that matter, all editors should be allowed to edit the article, not just the ones that are trying to keep it. Wefihe (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I rewrote the article. It now indicates a eight-fold pass of WP:PROF: (1-3) fellow of three major learned societies, (4-6) editor-in-chief of three journals (there was a fourth journal that I didn't mention because I'm not convinced it's significant), (7) president of IEEE ITSS, (8) heavily-cited publications in his Google Scholar profile. But since four of the eight were already in the article before I rewrote it, and the rewrite did nothing to change the existence of sources for this material (only their accessibility to lazy readers), I don't expect this to change the minds of the editors above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check All of the sources cited in the article are either from Wang's employers or the trade groups where he holds positions. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. A total failure of WP:VERIFY. Wefihe (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely normal for biographies of academics (who else would you expect to publish this sort of material?), and calling these learned societies "trade groups" indicates a big failure of understanding. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal for biographies that don't belong on Wikipedia. As for IEEE, I worked for them at one time and I can attest it is anything but a "learned society." As they used to say in the office, "Just make sure the checks don't bounce." Wefihe (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the rewrite adequately establishes notability. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Wefihe. This is a LinkedIn page, not an encyclopedia article. All of the sources come from the professor's employers. He hasn't accomplished anything that the outside world has acknowledged. 75.99.209.98 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC) — 75.99.209.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The last I looked the IEEE, ASME, and AAAS which have all honored him are firmly in the outside world. Notability is due to having been noticed within your field of expertise. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would echo the warnings of other editors about IEEE. I think the technical standards and Computer Science sides are respectable, but it's a federal organization and the quality varies widely. Some of their online journals and proceedings publish articles that would struggle to get through AfD and certainly should not count as RSs. Both the AAAS and the IEEE have thousands of fellows; it is an honour, but it's not sufficient for notability. I am surprised it's present in WP:PROF as we recently had a consensus to remove it. Matt's talk 21:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean to post a different link? I see nothing resembling a consensus for removal at the link you posted, and five years ago is not "recently". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE is not a "federal organization." It clearly identifies itself [29] as a "professional organization" - or, as another editor stated, a trade group. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Matt meant "federated", as in decentralized, rather than "federal", under the control of the federal government. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC which is just as legitimate a guideline as WP:GNG. All claims in the article are verifiable. Those making snarky remarks about that guideline and the academic societies should lobby for change elsewhere, since their comments are not valid here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes Notablity. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:34, 10 August 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 NU NRG. MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Ribeca[edit]

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

Appears to fails WP:MUSICBIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are are a couple of weak sources, but little else to support notability. - Mr X 15:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with NU NRG as that's what he's known for. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:20, 9 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aake Otsala[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 15:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 3 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harjeet Singh (politician)[edit]

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

Came third in the election he was contesting - fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable because of the election itself. But this doesn't show or source any evidence of preexisting notability at all. Secondly, it was created by User:Harpreet singhb, so there's a probable conflict of interest here. And thirdly, reinforcing the potential COI is the fact that this adopts the tone of a campaign brochure, rather than an encyclopedia article — but per WP:NOTADVERT, even a politician who did pass NPOL or GNG still wouldn't get to have that kind of article — it would have to be written neutrally, not like promotional campaign literature. That's three reasons why this has to go. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Everything but his candidacy is unsourced. No inline citations. Article looks like promo. The creator has the same name as the article, which indicates WP:COI. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to policies vote tally is not a criteria for judging whether an article should be kept or delete . But the XfD procedure is about quoting notability policies, giving logical reasoning and also WP:IAR. I agree with nominee that the person have not won an election, however but WP:POLITICIAN criteria 2 mentions that if a person have received significant amount of media coverage then the article should be kept. The person's article have received significant coverages by reputed Indian news media like Indian Express, Financial express. Indian Express is also considered as reliable source historically as well as on Wikiproject:India. The article passes criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN, so there is no reason to delete. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability because media coverage" is not automatically extended to everybody who's ever had a couple of pieces of media coverage — there are a lot of contexts where media coverage is simply and routinely expected to exist regardless of notability or lack thereof, such as being a candidate in an election. To be considered notable on campaign coverage alone, a person would have to be shown as having garnered a lot more coverage than the norm. (For example, failed US Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell became so famous, and got so much coverage, for her various campaign stumbles that we were actually able to write an article that's longer, and cites more references, than some people who have won election to the US Senate.) "Campaign coverage exists" isn't enough to get a candidate into Wikipedia just for the fact of being a candidate, because campaign coverage always exists: what it would take to get him included is evidence that his campaign coverage was exploding far out of scope to all the other candidates in the same election. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have copied bare URLs on the footnotes section and inline referenced it on the lead for inline citation verification purpose. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and appears to be a promotional stunt.-Umair Aj (talk) 08:41, 8 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Malik[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 12:02, 7 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Solicitors[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Looks to fail WP:ORG. Edwardx (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Sources on article are trivial mentions. — TheMagnificentist 12:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This firm fails my standards. I represented unpopular clients as a lawyer; that is what you are supposed to do as a lawyer. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 9 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kubra Gulieva[edit]

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

Associate professor, no claim to notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Just a long over-detailed CV. Edwardx (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable academic. Google Scholar has only one work of hers, no citations ([30]). Maybe there is something more, her name makes it difficult to search properly, but anyway, concur with nom - fails GNG/PROF, Wikipedia is not a place to post one's resumes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 3 August 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 Investor. The new DAB can be handled by a hatnote at the redirect target. So Why 06:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financier[edit]

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

Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), and unsourced since 2007. The content is vague blather not worth merging anywhere. Sandstein 14:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note too that this page is linked to as a See also from the main article, Investor, as is Businessperson and even Stock investor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand, add references. bd2412 T 22:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to say, difficult to do. If it were that easy, we could say this in every AfD and close it as "keep"... What reliable sources are there that cover the word "financier" as something other than just a word describing somebody who works in finance?
- Merge and redirect to Investor. After further researching this subject, I believe that the best resolution of this matter would be to merge this topic into Investor. A financier is a kind of investor (or, in some cases, a person who arranges relationships with other investors, but still only relevant within the context of the role of the investor). Looking over the hundreds of incoming links, this is the clear primary topic of the term by intent. bd2412 T 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a dab page for The Financier, Financier (cake), and The Financier, which merged into Financier and Bullionist. A wiktionary link and maybe some mention in the intro are sufficient for the business aspect. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it implausible that there is not a primary topic for the term "financier". Placing the dab page here will lead to editors making a lot of bad links as they try to fix incoming links by pointing to inexact matches like "investor". Of course, a financier can be an investor, but is also someone who arranges to have others invest in an enterprise. It is trivially easy to find sources that support a distinct and encyclopedic meaning of the term. bd2412 T 00:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support the dab idea. Financier, investor, banker, etc. are just words for somebody who works in finance, investment banking or banking. These are the topics (with all of their subtopics) that we need to cover, and not disperse our editorial resources over a zillion vaguely related terminology articles, or else we end up with a lot of unsourced useless permastubs like this one. Sandstein 06:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe that this is factually incorrect, and will lead to confusion rather than resolving confusion. Per the sources that I have found (of which I have added some to the page), not every financier is either an investor or a banker. A financier is a person who sees to the financing of a project for their own benefit, whether those finances come from their own pocket or entirely from the pocket of a third-party investor. Even if this is not the primary topic of the term, it should either exist at some title as a WP:DABCONCEPT page, or redirect to a page explaining the distinctions in finance terminology to alleviate exactly the kind of error as is exemplified by your statement (possibly merge with Investor). Please note that if this page is converted to a disambiguation page, WP:FIXDABLINKS requires that the 500 incoming links be fixed before that change is made, to avoid giving our disambiguators heart attacks. I assume that either you or Clarityfiend is prepared to volunteer to undertake this task? bd2412 T 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been raised as an option, I've added to the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge, probably to Investor. The page is mostly a dictionary definition. No opinion on creating a new DAB page. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created Financier (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. The collection makes it absolutely clear that no other sense - not the obscure pastry, not the 1912 book named for the profession, and not the early 1900s magazine also named for the profession - can possibly come close to challenging the profession as the primary topic. bd2412 T 03:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY due to good work by BD2412. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D'Arcy Trinkwon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable musician. A search for sources produces a few passing mentions, but nothing else. The previous AfD closed as "no consensus" despite no "keep" !votes whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find anything approaching independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO, so out it goes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arzu Naghiyev[edit]

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

Struggling to find any in-depth independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for one's resumes. No independent coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not created by a SPA, the editor created seven articles on differing subjects Atlantic306 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Minor apparatchik. scope_creep (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agile-SD[edit]

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

Obscure computer algorithm being promoted by one of its designers. No attempt to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few mentions in passing suffice to say this exists but don't establish WP:N . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstration of notability. Nothing approaching independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mujieeb[edit]

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

Small role in a minor film. Fails WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any significant coverage for this actor. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exceedingly minor, possibly WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Maybe in time there could be grounds for an article, but not for now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Call Insurance[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a brokerage firm. Notability is not inherited from sponsoring activity, nor is it provided by awards from Doncaster Chamber of Commerce or Young Broker of the Year for someone at the firm. My searches are not finding the in-depth coverage of the firm itself which would be needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability via WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only very trivial mentions in sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. So Why 14:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miina Turunen[edit]

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

~~Unsourced BLP, fails WP:GNG WP:NACTOR. BangJan1999 12:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep can't see how this is not fulfilling NACTOR. It is just not in English. http://www.lansivayla.fi/artikkeli/92797-karismaattisen-nayttelijan-tunnistaa-lasnaolosta is a good starting point. Agathoclea (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. BangJan1999 14:12, 1 August 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. No further discussion after relisting, opinions are split between keeping and merging but no one is in favor of deletion, so the status quo is kept. Merge discussion can happen on the talk page. So Why 06:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiac (comics)[edit]

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

This fictional character article has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. BOZ (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. A current lack of sources is not the same as no sources existing. Additionally, a previous bold merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C was overturned as keep. Pinging @Spidey104: and @Rtkat3:, who participated in the merge discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Cjhard: who was involved in the previous merge discussion. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That user was involved in a different merge discussion, which was resolved as merge already... BOZ (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that discussion and it was not demonstrated how that article satisfied the GNG. As you can see below, Rtkat3 is using another comic to claim GNG. Another Marvel comic isn't a WP:RS because it isn't a WP:SECONDARY source. AadaamS (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What BOZ meant was that Cjhard participated in a discussion to merge Century, not Cardiac. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I'll assume it was an honest mistake on the part of AadaamS, but I was confused for a moment when reviewing the talk page discussion to see where the subject of that ping came in. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I mentioned in the talk page for List of Marvel Comics characters: C, I oppose the merge for Cardiac where I commented that the page needed improvement ever since his appearances during the issues of The Superior Spider-Man. Spidey104 and BOZ even agreed with me that time. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance in The Superior Spider-Man cannot verify notability as a WP:RS is required to verify notability. A WP:RS is per default be a secondary source. TSSM is a primary source because it's another Marvel publication. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as the nominator said, there aren't reliable sources verifying the character's notability. They can't be found. Comic book characters aren't exempt from WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Cjhard (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion currently split evenly between keeping and merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of the miniseries is a strong indicator of notability. I suspect sources will exist, albeit independent fanzines, or the likes of Wizard Magazine. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Killer Moff: - what miniseries? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: - that's what I get for relying on my memories. I could've sworn he got one in the 90's, I can even picture the covers! But a quick google reveals no such thing. Oh well. Sign of getting old... --Killer Moff (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ. DrStrauss talk 10:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more time to see if we can get a clear consensus what to do here: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:25, 1 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Coxie[edit]

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

I can find no evidence at all that the four painters were related to the Lords of Moorsele, which would end in in an unsourced article with one redlink. The accompanying Category:House of Coxie should be removed from the four painter biographies and deleted as well. Fram (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can i have the time to provide the proof? give me some days. How impatient can someone be?--Carolus (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You now added a source, [31] which can be read online. It is a 1876 book, when research about 16th c. Flemish painters was in its infancy, so its reliability can be doubted. In any case, contrary to what the article implies ("The House of Coxie, sometime van Coxcyn as a Flemish noble family, titled Lords of Moorsele. Family members became famous as artists and Politicians."), the source indicates that first there were the artists, and one branch of descendants later became nobility. Michiel Coxie (and Raphael and so on) never were members of the nobility or descendants of nobility, even if we believe this old source. Fram (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, not a single modern source on the family of painters seems to find the link to the Lords of Moorsele in any way relevant enough to even mention them, and the one source you have added doesn't seem to mention "Moorsele" either. Perhaps because it shouldn't be Moorsele but Moorsel, which is a different thing altogether... As far as I can tell, Albert de Coxie was the first and last Lord of Moorsel from this family? Previously, Moorsel was owned by the Croÿ family, and Albert de Coxie apparently survived all his male descendants. Basically, we have a family of painters, and then a noble "house" consisting of one single member, it seems. Fram (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the correct source, please be patient, do NOT move to draft, then i will delete all. Thanks--Carolus (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom or eventually dratify to allow Carolus time to find sources. I would suggest that Carolus submit his articles as drafts in the future as there is a serious lack of understanding of policies and guidelines. creating unsourced articles wastes a lot of time and effort on the part of the community. Domdeparis (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to comply with WP:V, which is a core content policy above any notability concerns. See WP:DEL6 and WP:DEL7. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Walton[edit]

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

Founder of a small non-notable company. One Forbes article, and that seems to be about it. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mix of paid business profile to advertise the company. Fails WP:BIO. Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adeniyi Makanjuola[edit]

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

Created by one SPA and expanded by two others. Has roles in three companies, but none are notable companies. Edwardx (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt Classic spammer created article, with supplied profile picture. scope_creep (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found only this source which is not enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clearly non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre of Silence: The Lost Soul of Football[edit]

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

I fail to see how this book has any encyclopaedic significance. The sources included in the article barely acknowledge that the book exists, much less that it deserves an entry in an encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 11:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 11:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Lack of reviews in reliable sources, and although I found a couple of references to it in books, it doesn't meet notability requirements. The publisher is a vanity press (which isn't grounds for deletion, but doesn't help notability).[32] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 3 August 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moaid Mahjoub[edit]

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

Non-notable; disputed PROD. Cannot find evidence to support assertion that the subject is a notable TV Broadcaster. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost notable in a couple of areas doesn't add up to notable in any. Cabayi (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moaid Mahjoub Official Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark2SF (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mark2SF:} posted the following on my talk page. I have copied it below:

Moaid Mahjoub is a Saudi broadcast journalist

some of articles in the media arabic :

جائزة الشيخ زايد للكتاب تعلن القائمة الطويلة لفرع "الترجمة" في دورتها الحادية عشر

أشوفك ( تخنق ) ( الفرحه) و ترجع لي .. تعزيني..!‏بقلم:مؤيد اسامة محجوب عشــــاق الليـــل..بقلم:مؤيد اسامة محجوب

وصيتي الشرعية بقلم:مؤيد محجوب

أخطار النوم عندما يزيد عن 9ساعات بقلم:مؤيد محجوب

أن آل سعود حفظهم الله نعمة من الله عزوجل بقلم:مؤيد أسامة محجوب

هـــواك ياروحي بقلبي أشيلـــه شعر: مؤيد أسامة محجوب

استر عيـوب الناس لا تفضـح إنسان بقلم:مؤيد أسامة محجوب

أجمل بقايا الحـب صورة وتذكار بقلم:مؤيد محجوب

يسألوني ليه أحبك !! بقلم:مؤيد اسامة محجوب

فيتامينات زوجيه‎‎ بقلم:مؤيد أسامة محجوب

جتني رساله بقلم:مؤيد أسامة محجوب

TV interview :yahala show in rotana tv

تعالى نتصالح بقلم:مؤيد أسامة محجوب — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark2SF (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have not yet checked the links for veracity or suitability. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moaid mahjoub facebook oficial

Moaid Mahjoub on muckrack for journalist

Moaid Mahjoub Official Twitter

How long it will take to checked the links for veracity or suitability

Comment @Mark2SF: It won't be one person checking it, it will be everyone who wishes to take part in this deletion discussion. My suggestion is to carry on improving the article, including adding these references. I would suggest that you also try and add references from other sources, in case the ones you listed above are not acceptable. I am not familiar with pulpit.alwatanvoice.com, but I do know that YouTube is generally not accepted as a source; also Twitter and Facebook accounts definitely do not count as notable third party references. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark2SF -- Cabayi (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:31, 10 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin siawash[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 1 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaisano Capital Pagadian[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, barely any sources sufficient enough to pass WP:NCORP. PROD removed by IP without citing a reason Ajf773 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't assert its corporate notability. DrStrauss talk 10:28, 1 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freda Cruse Atwell[edit]

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

Delete: for same reasons article has been tagged (Notability, primary sources, OR, autobiography); no improvements have been made. Quis separabit? 03:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reviews of her books that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 2 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Île de Susee[edit]

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

No independent sources demonstrating any significant coverage. Possible hoax. When PRODed, the article's creator uploaded a PDF, generated immediately before it was uploaded, supposedly from a publication called Vanceboro Monthly. The supposed author of the article is named in an obituary as the daughter of the subject after whom the island was supposedly named. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that as of now, there are little to no verifiable independent sources due to the nature of who wrote the publication. However, independent sources are going to publish reliable coverage soon, and I have been in contact with several different local and state media outlets. This process should only take 5-10 more days. Once the media coverage is there, it should be clear why this article should be included on Wikipedia. Enzo Francis 23:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnzoCameli (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and not the place to announce things you made up one day. Even if some "local and state media outlet" were to happen to take interest in your little campaign, that will not be enough evidence to show that the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a reliable source to support this article. Of the 5 refs in the article, 3 have no mention of the island, and the other 2 are from a blog set up specifically about it and I don't find them reliable. The geocoordinates also don't appear to show the island. PK T(alk) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on google maps you won't be able to see the island due to the extremely high river at that time in the year. If you look on Apple maps or other satellite maps, you should be able to see it. Enzo Francis 23:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete: Per the Vanceboro Monthly article discussed, the island across from the family's property was named "Île de Susee" by the family, in honor of a recently deceased person. This seems like a very creative and nice memorial, and it equally seems nice to seek and obtain local news coverage of the memorial. Really, I honestly think this is very nice. However, the event of the memorial and the island itself do not rise to the level of world-wide encyclopedic interest. Conceivably Wikipedia could cover memorials like this or other memorials like roadside crosses erected at accident sites by family members, but it does not, probably because we don't want to pass judgment on which memorials are important enough vs. not important enough. Or, well, actually, we do cover memorials like Grant's Tomb and some Confederate Memorials, but only where there is substantial academic and/or news coverage of them, and the coverage has endured. To User:EnzoCameli, I hope you can understand that Wikipedia does not accept articles on hardly anything new at all, and that this just doesn't currently fit. If this AFD is closed "Delete" and the article is removed, you can request a copy from the closing administrator or by request at wp:REFUND. --do ncr am 02:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:GEOLAND, every geographical feature on the planet does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it exists — we do not keep an article about every island, every lake, every hill, every pond, every river, every road, that exists, but only about notable geographic features. What we require is reliable source coverage about it, not just its location on Google Maps and a self-published blog by whatever random person decided to name it themselves — and no, that coverage can't result from a directly affiliated person lobbying media outlets to cover it, either, but has to result from media organically paying it attention independently of a PR campaign. But literally the only acceptable reliable source present here is just supporting a very general statement about the nature of Canadian-American relations, not any content about the island. None of this is even close to enough to deem this notable. If, and that's a very big if, it someday does occasion a Canada-US border dispute of the type claimed here, then there may be grounds for a Wikipedia article — but the case for that will depend on "an actual controversy actually happens for real", not "one could theoretically happen in the future because reasons that are claimed here but not actually sourced as true". Stick to your blog, because nothing here makes this appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ciranko[edit]

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

This article appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as a brief mention as a corporation president is not "significant coverage". The source cited doesn't seem to say anything of substance, and even primary sources say very little about Ciranko. It seems that this article has been created merely because articles exist about other Watch Tower Society presidents. Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the president of the main corporation of JW's was relevant enough. We can keep the article and find more info over time. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion is coverage in reliable secondary sources, not 'he's probably notable'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even within the group, despite his position, this person is considered behind the scenes. —Paleo Neonate - 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate - 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate - 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. —Paleo Neonate - 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as far as I could see from some online searching (and he's recent enough that there are unlikely to be many other paper sources). Matt's talk 16:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched and can't find WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I have no time for the Watchtower Society, but its President (equivalent of an archbishop or primate) certainly should be notable. The problem is that this is a mere stub and we have no detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something 'should' be notable is irrelevant, and the president of the corporation in question is not at all analogous to "an archbishop or primate". The fact remains that the subject of the article fails the general notability guideline.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Even within the organization this person is mostly behind the scenes. Fails general notability guidelines for now. Future events may possibly eventually make Ciranko notable. —Paleo Neonate – 06:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Notability has not been estabished. Antonioatrylia (talk) 22:00, 8 August 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. Favonian (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ejembi John Onah[edit]

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

Subject is a "run of the mill" professor, not compliant with WP:PROF or WP:GNG Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find much that would support WP:PROF or WP:GNG. He seems to have founded a couple of non-notable organizations and is the editor-in-chief of JONPI, apparently a small journal associated with one of the organizations he founded. Citation record is not close to meeting notability requirements (H index is 4 per GS if I did it correctly). He is described as a professor but I couldn't find anything about a current academic appointment. I can't find an independent source that describes any role of his in the Cornell nanotechnology program, much less a pioneering one. He has obtained another doctorate but I don't not find anything significant about him in that field (religious studies). EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing WP:NPROF. Looks like an autobio as well. shoy (reactions) 19:41, 2 August 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. Sources provided support keeping; now they should be implemented to article only (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryvale Mall[edit]

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

No sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Maryvale, Arizona, or maybe just keep it. Maryvale Shopping City was an important part of the overall design for this landmark suburban development by John F. Long and his architect, Victor Gruen. There are assorted sources apparent (though not necessarily readable in full) in searches, e.g. [33][34][35][36]. References can also be seen to offline resources about the mall in architectural and urban policy journals, as well as sources about its later decline and adaptive reuse as a school (e.g. [37]). Newspaper articles from the Arizona Republic are also apparent at newspapers.com, but it's "premium" material. With enough effort and better access, someone could probably source much of this. In the meantime, however, it might be sufficient to merge this into the existing article about the area. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we do merge let's leave behind a categorized redirect. I've just added one of those book cites, with a link to Victor Gruen and created Category:Victor Gruen buildings. At a time when these malls are fast-disappearing from many parts of the U.S., we do need to take care that we're not losing content on notable former landmarks that simply don't have a lot of online sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Maryvale, Arizona per WP:ATD-R as a valid search term. The latter article has some content about the mall. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources mentioned above and additional such as [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] and as mentioned above, all the coverage in the Arizona Republic on this significant part of Phoenix's history. The article needs improvement and sourcing, but the topic is notable. MB 14:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal:, @Northamerica1000: Did any of you look at these sources? They seem to be worthwhile. I will withdraw the AFD and add the sources if you agree. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: @MB: The Google Books links seem to be broken. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I fixed one Google Book link; the others seem to be OK. MB 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The initial links provided are passing mentions, and I'm unable to access some of the newer sources posted. Struck my !vote above, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 5 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Weeks[edit]

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

There has been no display of apparent notability. Most of the references fail to mention Ben Weeks at all, but goes into great detail about his collaborators. From what I can see, two references mention Ben Weeks; one that is an non-notable documentary, as well as a user-created awards page in a database. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a lot of namedropping in the article, but frankly nothing (in either article or references) that supports the notability of the subject. PK T(alk) 19:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respect your opinion, but I believe you are not viewing the whole picture here. The topic, in the worst scenario, is notable for his work on They Fight Like Soldiers, They Die Like Children, as described in the article. Also, mentioned awards are not user generated. Each one was awarded by a jury of notable illustration practitioners, with about 100 images awarded out of 3000+ entries. The topic was also featured in Canada's main print magazine for graphic design, photography and illustration named Applied Arts Magazine, which will be my next topic to cover and which is mentioned in dozens of articles on Wikipedia. He was featured in print version of the New York Times in 2008, he is a recipient of Design Edge Canada Award, etc. I will review the article content and include additional sources. --EngiZe (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator didn't say that the award was user-generated — they said that the reference given for the award win is user-generated. An award constitutes a notability claim for the purposes of a Wikipedia article only insofar as reliable source media outlets treat the granting of that award as news worth assigning one of their journalists to write about independently of the award's own self-published web presence. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of in depth coverage. Can our friend Bearcat from Toronto weigh in? Bearian (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references here represent reliable source coverage about him — every last one of them is either a primary source, or coverage of tangential topics which with one exception doesn't even contain Weeks' name at all. This is not how you demonstrate a person's notability for the purposes of a Wikipedia article — he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage, and nothing that can be said about him hands him an inclusion freebie that exempts him from that requirement just because it's been stated. And it's not enough to just assert that other sources exist if you're not showing them, either — if he's been covered in Applied Arts Magazine and The New York Times as EngiZe claims, then why aren't those citations present in the article? Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:47, 9 August 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OX Group (UK)[edit]

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

Company that fails WP:N for lack of coverage in reliable sources. All the references in the article are non-independent or trade publications, and web and news search does not reveal enough coverage to meet our inclusion standards per WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete gnews reveals 1 line mentions mainly in industry publications. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neither this UK subsidiary nor the Australian parent firm looks notable. The article contains no claim of notability and the sole 3rd party source is merely noting that the firm employed a sand sculptor for their stand at an industry fair. My searches are finding nothing better: fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete corporate spam failing CORPDEPTH, terms of use violation too. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alipio Ponce[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale. While he's been designated a "national hero", there is no indication of what exactly that is. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and definitely does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and suggest to withdraw. There are streets named after him ([43]) [44]) There are schools named after him ([45] [46]). The school that trains mid-level officers of the Peruvian police is called "Escuela de Educación Superior Técnico Profesional-Héroe Nacional Cap. PNP. Alipio Ponce". There is even a football team named after him. The article is sourced with a 225-page book, so in-depth coverage is definitely available. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, given he was declared "a National Hero on April 24, 1987"; it seemingly would be enough for GNG. Certainly his rank does not, and it would help the article and reader if more details were added, which would convey why he was declared such. As of now, it is very weak. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure what a "National Hero" actually means. Is it the "nation's highest award for valour"? It's not listed at List of highest military decorations (but there is no entry at all for Peru). The closest thing I could find is the Order of the Sun of Peru, but that is for both civil and military "merit", not sure how that ties into the NSOLDIER parameter. As best as I can find, the two highest awards are the Military Merit Cross (awarded to army personnel for outstanding service in defense of the nation or public order), and the Peruvian Navy Merit Cross for Navy personnel. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete streets and schools are often named after non-notable people, neither is a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Included in the book is the declaration as a National Hero, which was done by an individual statute, which seems to indicate its importance separate from whether it's a military decoration. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does appear to be an official status conferred by the state by individual legislation on a fairly small number of individuals and entails reburial in the Crypt of the Heroes in Lima. I think it definitely meets the criteria of both WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Official declaration as a national hero should be enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Every Purple Heart awardee, every Bronze Star awardee, etc. is an official declaration of that person being a national hero. Still haven't seen anything to show how this declaration meets GNG. Especially since there are awards in that country which are considered the highest award. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 8 August 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. only (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.C.H. issues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Issues are already listed in the W.I.T.C.H. article. There is no reason for a standalone article, as there is nothing added here. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see nothing here which isn't covered better in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing a need for merge or redirect. Artw (talk) 22:57, 1 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keti Papanika[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 1 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Rohde[edit]

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molai Sheedai[edit]

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

Not many sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 1 August 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics for a similar case. Either consensus exists to have such articles in general or it doesn't but AFD is not the right forum to discuss this in general and while here there was no consensus to delete, nominating such articles for AFD on a large scale will most likely disrupt the process until there is clear consensus whether such articles should exist at all. So Why 10:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three-cushion billiards at the 2017 World Games – men's singles[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notabilty. - Mr X 18:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 World Games is a major international multi-sport event. I think it should meet WP:NSPORTS. Also, there will be more sources when the event is finished.--QBear (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep As long as reliable sources can be used to flesh out the article when the games are finished.TH1980 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. The World Games are clearly a notable event, essentially like the Olympics for non-Olympic sports. I have to wonder why nominator decided to pick this article off specifically if he feels this kind of article is not inherently notable, when so many others exist - literally thousands. This is not the way to do that. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 1 August 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 Air North. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon, North of Ordinary[edit]

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

In-flight magazine for small regional airline (Air North). Pleanty of awards from the International Regional Magazine Association, but unless I misunderstand their website, the IRMA consists of a total of 30 magazines. Lacks reliable third-party sourcing. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might conceivably meet #1 of Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals, "have produced award winning work", but fails all other criteria. However, all the awards apart from a local Yukon one are from the International Regional Magazine Association. Do bear in mind that Arizona Highways won 20 IRMA Awards for 2015 alone. IRMA must hand out awards like confetti. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable publication with non-notable awards. Probably promotional too, although I'm not sure I'd repeatedly use the phrase "circulation 30,000 or less" if I was submitting a promotional article about a magazine. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Air North per WP:ATD-M. Not notable on its own afaict but can be mentioned with a sentence or two in the airline's article. Regards So Why 09:45, 9 August 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. only (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Clements[edit]

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

This article appears to not meet WP:Prof or WP:Politician --104.187.134.70 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 00:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an unsuccessful candidate he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and I can't find evidence that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for political office don't pass WP:NPOL just for being candidates, but the only sources present here for his work as a professor are his own self-published c.v. on the website of the institution where he's a professor — primary sources that cannot assist notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 3 August 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. autobiography with absolutely no claim of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journey Juju Brener[edit]

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

Not enough notability. Lack of content. Telfordbuck (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 1 August 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qrator[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Routine announcements or company-generated PR. While some references are from "reliable sources", there are no references that pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:GNG & WP:CORPDEPTH fail. The article is exclusively promotional, with content such as:

The company currently makes revenue from commissions on sales.[18] In a recent interview, its founder said he expects a growth of 250% per year! Etc.

Basically, spam. Surprisingly accepted at AfD two years ago and has not improved since. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forbes Brazil is the only publication with anything in-depth and is only one publication. Failes WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:38, 8 August 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 Raj Comics. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bheriya[edit]

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

Non-notable character sourced to the comic's own website and blogs. Fails WP:GNG but may be a possible redirect term. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raj Comics. Independent coverage in reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raj Comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:16, 1 August 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. Nominator withdrawn, no opposition. (non-admin closure). John from Idegon (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suydam House[edit]

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

I do not believe this article is notable, unless something very important is missing from the article (like why this place is notable to anyone who isn't local?), it is not WP:NOTABLE compliant. Its basically a house/tourist attraction A Guy into Books (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC) additional comment. it appears that this article is part of a set. I cannot "personally" see why NRHP buildings are notable but their equivalents in others countries are not. I am from the UK, where Grade II listed buildings are not considered notable, and most museums are not notable either. I think that a wider look at what is notable in relation to buildings of historical interest but no great fame is in order. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can you be a bit more precise in your nomination? In particular, can you explain how you carried out WP:BEFORE and what you found (or didn't find)? Also, I think that generally NRHP buildings are kept, do you believe this should be an exception? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Grade II listed buildings aren't considered notable? I'd guess that all would pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and could be covered under WP:GEOFEAT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a fan and creator and editor of many articles on NRHP-listed houses and other sites. There are much worse NRHP articles to suggest for possible deletion that don't have any NRHP nomination document information included in them; this one was developed and links to an NRHP nomination document. But in this one (and quite a lot of others) the information provided in the article does not explain any importance of the place. "No assertion of notability" is a Speedy Deletion reason, although technically not a valid argument in AFDs. --do ncr am 03:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. A NRHP listing that documentation for the property exists to be retrieved, even though the information may be off line. For Wikipedia's purposes, such documentation nearly always establishes likely notability. NRHP stub like this one have long been a point of contention, but we almost never delete them. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think NRHP stubs this long, with an NRHP nomination document included as a source, have never really much been contested for their notability, though there has been other contention about them, and shorter NRHP articles with just NRIS database source have been nominated for deletion. The link for the NRHP nomination document source here, from New York State, like most New York State ones, doesn't work though, so it is not easy to immediately improve this article using that source. The least substantial NRHP articles are listed by a bot at User:NationalRegisterBot/Substubs, including currently 1848 short (<325 byte text) articles having no inline citations besides to the NRIS database. I don't know if a campaign to delete them all would help; any individual article can just be improved in immediate response to a specific AFD. --do ncr am 14:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The usual view has been that NRHP sites are notable. The fact that this one is apparently a museum seems to confirm notability, but I do not really know. We have shied away from allowing articles on every British Listed Building, which is an equivalent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standards for listing a property on the National Register of Historic Places are higher than Wikipedia's standards of notability; getting a property listed requires both extensive research and the preparation of a list of references about the property. This house appears to be no exception. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability and fame are not equivalent. Keep per TheCatalyst31 above. NHRP requirements being met are prima facie evidence that WP:GNG is met. John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRHP nomination process includes a well-researched nomination followed by vetting at the state and national levels. Einbierbitte (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:TheCatalyst31, User:Einbierbitte, User:Pubdog, User:John from Idegon: does anyone know how to access the New York State system in general, or the NRHP document for this specific site? It is arguable that the article does not assert notability; this could be addressed by developing some claim from the NRHP document, if anyone could see that (the current link from the article doesn't work). --do ncr am 14:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the details are scant, it says not yet digitised. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/AssetDetail?assetID=b2f708c0-a76f-4265-a61c-ca3cc7b58bf3 there is more information about the system access on this page: https://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ also the state has open data on it, which is less useful, at: https://data.ny.gov/Recreation/National-Register-of-Historic-Places/iisn-hnyv A Guy into Books (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the National Park Service provides scant info about New York State listings, which used to be fairly well covered by a New York State system which had permalinks to NRHP documents and photos, but the permalinks were all killed. The WikiProject NRHP's help page at wp:NRHPHELP#New York provides a link to the current NYS system, in which you can bump around to eventually get to the NRHP nomination document.

The document states "The Suydam house is architecturally and historically significant as a distinguished, largely extant example of settlement period domestic architecture on Long Island that recalls the early growth of the town of Huntingdon. Built circa 1730, this New England style saltbox (with eighteenth century wing) is one of the oldest remaining houses in the village of Centerport. It is similar in plan, construction and design to many settlement period dwellings in Huntingdon (Town) such as the John Woods House (circa 1704) and the Ireland-Gardiner Farm (circa 1750). Like these and other seventeenth and eighteenth century dwellings in the Huntingdon (Town) Multiple Resource area, the building exhibits characteristic architectural features of early construction practices on Long Island, including heavy hewn timber framing, original wrought-iron hardware, and an overall lack of decorative ornamentation." etc. This is assertion of notability, not really reflected in the article, but available in source. --do ncr am 20:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though i actually started this Afd i now believe this article should be kept. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then, and with the nominator !voting "Keep" there are no outstanding "Delete" votes and this AFD could be closed by anyone. --do ncr am 12:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - When even the nom is !voting to keep this, I just want to increase my AfD consensus stats. Well, also it's a NRHP location which even just the NRHP by its own rules has extensive coverage somewhere, online or hardcopy. --Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 5 August 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.