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. SoWhy 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Beeman[edit]

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

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

no claim of notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I found passing mentions on Google Books which isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:03, 13 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. SoWhy 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Marie Evans[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actress, whose only stated claim of notability is one role in one film. As always, every actress who exists is not automatically handed a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- the article has to be supported by reliable source coverage about her in media to satisfy NACTOR, and if you're aiming for "notable because she's had roles", rather than "notable because she won or got nominated for a major film award", then it takes multiple significant roles and not just one. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's coverage of both her acting (mostly about her role in Maximum Ride) and her earlier "beauty vlogging" (which I guess is a thing?) but seemingly nothing substantial, and it's largely dubiously-reliable sources, though there were some exceptions (e.g. LA Times). Maybe just WP:TOOSOON. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:41, 20 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. SoWhy 13:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YSL (record label)[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced article about a record label, whose only releases to date have been mixtape albums. As always, record labels are not given an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist -- they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 13:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send No Flowers[edit]

Send No Flowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per source searches, this band does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Sources searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found one review of one of their albums on what seems to be a WP:RS site, but everything else was either passing mentions, user-generated, or both. They might hit it big someday, but that day has not yet come. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:50, 20 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. Consensus to retain the article. (non-admin closure) J947^{(c) (m)} 04:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury rail in India[edit]

Luxury rail in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is just a list of various luxury trains in India, most (or maybe all) of which have their own article(s) anyway, plus there is already an where they are listed. This article repeats the text already present in the respective articles and does not offer any additional value. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – As this is essentially a list article, qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Luxury trains in India. Also qualifies per WP:LISTPURP, as evidenced in part by the 2,093 page views the page has received in the last thirty days. Conversely, the Category:Luxury trains in India page has only received 30 page views in the last thirty days. As such, the article is clearly of worth for Wikipedia's readers as a valuable information source and navigational aid. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Northamerica1000: You can't really know how many have clicked a wikilink from other articles, expecting the article to be what the title suggests, but instead they just get a duplicated list of existing articles. Unless you're going to be the one to redevelop it and make it worthy of an article (history of luxury trains, luxury services and modern day usage etc), will this article remain unchanged after the AfD concludes? As it stands, it would seem the article will be kept, which is only not a bad thing if it brings to the attention that it needs rewrtiting from the ground up. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this is a valid list of luxury tourist trains. You can verify the list at the Indian railways website. These tourist trains are a very important part of Indian railways and tourism and the topic is well known to all Indians. I agree that the article is not very well written. It currently duplicates a bit of information and it can be presented in a better manner. Perhaps a table could be added with details of date of opening, route, kilometeres and other details. However there is definitely potential to improve it.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is valid and notable among a list of other Indian railways. Erin93 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would expect readers to arrive at one Indian luxury train article, then use the list article (rather than the category) to find other luxury trains serving India... and that seems to be what the pageview stats suggest is happening. This appears to be a valid list article and one that people are using. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:15, 20 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. This is not a resounding consensus but Gaknowitall's argument is not policy based and Doncram's argument is effectively rebutted by NYA. As this is a close call I'm happy to reconsider on request. A Train^talk 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

300 South Tryon[edit]

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

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

Non-notable building. Only claims to significance are that, if completed according to plan, (i) it will be the eighth tallest building in Charlotte, North Carolina and (ii) it will be the first tall building in Charlotte to have been constructed since 2012. This is not the "significance" contemplated by WP:GEOFEAT. Also, sources in the article are local, except when they are primary. Web searches show the same -- now that the building is nearing completion, there is some "buzz" about it in the Charlotte news sources, but nothing beyond that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article says that the building is under construction, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It seems to me that it would make more sense if we waited until the construction of this building is finished before deciding whether it should have an article in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets wp:GNG. Develop using sources available to expand the article to cover more about it. There are a couple Charlotte Observer articles about it. I don't understand the dismissal of sources as either being local so invalid (why? the Charlotte Observer is a valid source like the New York Times and both write about local matters) or being primary (it is appropriate and good to use primary sources). Also the building is under construction and sources exist and it is not a matter of speculation about whether some film might be created or not. --doncram 18:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Don, I tend to not badger people who offer opinions different than mine. But you did form part of your comment as a question, so I'll answer here. The concern about purely-local coverage comes from WP:AUD. And that provision of the guideline makes a lot of sense, especially in the instant context. Is there any new office building anywhere in the world that hasn't received local press coverage of its planning and construction? And their opening ceremonies? And maybe the moving-in of their first tenants? If we accept the existence of local coverage as a good reason to ignore WP:GEOFEAT's call for "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance", we are going to end up as a directory of virtually every office building in the world. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is just another 25 story office tower. It is not noteworthy even in Charlotte other than the fact that it was the first office tower built in 7 years. It is covered by two typical groundbreaking articles and two announcing the construction. Nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are an infinite number of "non-notable" buildings with Wikipedia articles about them all over the world. This one is no different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs)

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for retention. Notability IS always required. Please sign your comments.--Rpclod (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator. A natural redirect target would be List of tallest buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina, where it appears in an "under construction" list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:20, 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 no consensus. SoWhy 16:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Garretson[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a television director and producer. While there are claims here that would probably satisfy WP:CREATIVE if they were properly sourced, nothing here hands her an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of legitimate sourcing for it -- but the only references present here are a genealogy page for her birthdate (which has been getting editwarred over, to boot), her own LinkedIn, and her own deadlinked "staff" profile on the website of an organization she's been directly involved with. And the article has been flagged as needing better references since 2010, to boot. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to sources I don't have can properly reference this up to a keepable standard, but nothing here entitles her to indefinitely keep an article that's parked entirely on primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - most of the content looks okay, just needs a few sources. Won and nominated for several important awards, key person on many popular (notable) shows. I've added some RS and will add more. Keep the "baby". (And this "baby" was flagged in 2009) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Frank Capra award is a big deal. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or delete. Unless I'm missing something, all the sources, including what StrayBolt added, are either connected to the subject, unreliable (local coverage, blogs, etc.), or mere passing mentions. If I did miss something, please hit up my talk page and I'll reconsider, as I hate to see articles go which seem like they should be notable. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It should be Keep from WP:CREATIVE #3 for just her directing work for many episodes and seasons on Fraiser, a show in the top ten (almost) every season. Yes, I know the DGA is not a reliable source for the DGA awards, and also because she is a director, she is a member of DGA and another reason not to trust that source. Time to take a break and watch another Garage Sale Mystery. StrayBolt (talk) 05:41, 20 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 villages, delete the neighbourhoods. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Vicente de Paul[edit]

San Vicente de Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Las Toscas, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Los Rosales, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

España, Santa Cruz, Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lautaro, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gabriela Mistral, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Las Viñas, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Magisterio, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ramón Sanfurgo, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

El Tambo, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

La Puerta, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Isla del Guindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quinahue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Valenzuela, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chomedahue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Los Alerces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paso Los Reyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

El Rosal de los Boldos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Isla Centro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Las Cortaderas, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

La Finca, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Panamá, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lo Maldonado, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Villa Alegre, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

La Patagua, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Millahue de Apalta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San José de Apalta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

La Dehesa, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

La Alborada, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

El Porvenir, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Salto de Agua, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

El Esfuerzo, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

El Peral, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Los Maitenes, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mi Futuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nueva Esperanza, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nueva Extremadura, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pablo Neruda, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:GEOLAND. The neighborhoods are not "legally" recognized by Chilean Law as territorial units (they are not part of administrative, electoral or census divisions). Juntas de vecinos are not a legal recognition of a place, because they are not government bodies, they are voluntary NGOs based in a territory chosen by their founders. In fact, it could be possible to find more than one junta de vecinos in the same neighborhood, or a junta that is composed by neighbors of two or more different neighborhoods. San Vicente de Paul is a little neighborhood with no non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It's almost exactly the same situation that happened with a lot of Pichilemu-related articles that were deleted some time ago for the same reasons (coincidentally, these Santa Cruz neighbourhoods articles were created by the same author who created the deleted Pichilemu ones). Sfs90 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related pages (mentioned under the first article nominated [San Vicente de Paul]) because the same reasons above; the only reference of these articles is a list of representatives and local organisations on the Municipality of Santa Cruz, that is not a legal recognition of the neighbourhoods:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added the other pages that were nominated in the same timeframe. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Sfs90, you have not marked Mi Futuro, Nueva Esperanza, Nueva Extremadura, or Pablo Neruda as being nominated for deletion. If you wish to nominated them as well, please add the AFD notice. Also, I have reversed your creation-then-nomination of the various redirects. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, Done. Thanks for the message! --Sfs90 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several places listed which are actually villages or little towns ("pueblos"). These include El Tambo, La Puerta, Isla del Guindo, Quinahue, Chomedahue, La Finca, Las Cortaderas, Panamá, La Patagua, San José de Apalta, Los Maitenes and Villa Alegre. They are all notable as per the notability guidelines for geographic features. The remainder should be deleted because they are only neighborhoods and do not comply with Wikipedia's aforementioned guidelines. 201.215.141.30 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• An interesting fact in the previous message given by an IP address is that, according to their contributions history, it looks that the person behind that IP is nothing else than Diego Grez, a user who was blocked some time ago because of their continuous disruptive editing and WP:COI (mainly because he is the "owner" of a "newspaper" in their little city). In this time, he is editing and reverting without any reason some articles in which I have edited in the last days (for example Mayor of Pichilemu, insisting to add their second surname and reverting every edit I made there). --Sfs90 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if that was true (which it isn't) there is no need to use such a derogatory language against the individual you mention. Nor there is need to be rude, you have removed my comments from your talk page because I edit as an IP. Seems to me that your own behaviour is an interesting fact. But, I advise you Sfs90, keep your head cool. I hope we can work out things in a civil, respectful way. --201.215.141.30 (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very interesting that you're looking (maybe like a WP:HOUND) on other languages Wikis to create a discussion here that has absolutely nothing related with the discussion here (the deletion of some articles). That's exactly the attitude Diego Grez had, and makes me think again that you're under the IP address editing in such an arbitrary way. --Sfs90 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pure fallacious ad hominem reasoning. This is utter non sense. 201.215.141.30 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep, at a minimum, El Tambo, as "El Tambo, Santa Cruz, Chile" into Google Earth pulls up a populated place, listed as a "village" in the stub article. I am tempted to say that all should be kept on procedural grounds, since there is at least this one sheep being lead to the slaughter. One line stubs listed as a "neighborhood" I have less problem with, but I don't think it is fair to have to pick through a massive laundry list to clean up bad nominations caused by the nominator not following WP:BEFORE. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - El Tambo, La Puerta, Isla del Guindo, Quinahue, Chomedahue, La Finca, Las Cortaderas, Panamá, La Patagua, San José de Apalta, Los Maitenes and Villa Alegre — all are legitimate villages, populated places, and thus auto-keeps. I trust IP 201 above has picked through the list to figure out the sheep from the goats. TROUT to the nominator for a really terrible, potentially very destructive, mass nomination. Carrite (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep legitimate villages, delete mere neighborhoods (unless they can pass WP:GNG), be very careful not to confuse which placenames are which kind of place. And let's please remember that IP editors are people too, and owed WP:AGF just as much as registered users. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:50, 20 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organize-it[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crookes Magazine[edit]

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

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

No substantial coverage, at least as far as Google can tell, to meet WP:GNG, fails notability. Largoplazo (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  The links I looked at on Google didn't show any secondary sources.  It was started in 2015, so apparently it has not attracted the attention of the world yet.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shazli Tahir[edit]

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

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

No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notable for Single event. --Saqib (talk) 16:40, 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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TarfayaPedia[edit]

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

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

I do not see how it is notable. Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 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. Clearly no consensus to delete here. Any discussion about redirection can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 20:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont Gallery[edit]

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

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

Non-notable art gallery, as clearly stated in the article text has a minor collection. Not even a notable entity within the Academy Hyungjoo98 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy - not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's already mentioned in the parent. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy - not certain it's notable enough for a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not notable enough for a redirect. Most mentions of a Lamont Gallery point towards a gallery in London, a completely different entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any such gallery. alphalfalfa^(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Lamont gallery London. Although it is also not notable.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you google Lamont Gallery by itself, it scarcely mentions the one in London.alphalfalfa^(talk) 10:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This gallery has been covered by local and statewide news such as seacoast online and NHPR, and also New Hampshire tour guides. Works exhibited or in its possession have been used in a multitude of other works. The gallery has hosted many significant artists, and holds the works of many significant articles in its collections. It passes WP:GNG. Also, small does not mean minor. Though not large, it contains significant paintings from known artists, like Diego Rivera. -alphalfalfa^(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the paintings are significant, and even if they were it would not establish the notability of this gallery. The Lamont Gallery could be easily explained with one or two sentences in the main Phillips Exeter Academy page Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the point of this museum. The main focus of the gallery is to exhibit rotating shows of visiting artists, exhibitions of which have been documented by news sites. The collection is secondary. Also, yes, the paintings are significant, and have toured around to several larger museums. See the new text I added. The significance of a museum is, unlike what you stated, directly derived from the exhibitions and collections. The gallery has significance by itself, not owed to the academy, unlike the dozens of articles you splintered off from the Hill that got deleted. alphalfalfa^(talk) 22:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the articles of the Hill that were deleted (which took quite a bit of discussion and debate), this article is unanimously non-notable. There is no indication in the article or anywhere else that any of the paintings are significant (if they were, articles should be made for them first!) There are three references, two are from itself, one is a insignificant local tourist guide. Also, I urge you to not use personal attacks in the future WP:PA Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there was little to no debate on those articles. They were unanimously deleted. Secondly, a painting needs not to have an article to be important. It is by an important artist, and has been showcased a important museums. I must reiterate also that the importance of the collection is secondary. The most important thing about the gallery is its rotating exhibitions. I will add sources from newspapers about those exhibitions. I also have to point out that I am not personally attacking you, but merely clarifying a concept to you. I mean no offense, if any was perceived. alphalfalfa^(talk) 09:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The gallery's opening in 1953 was covered by The New York Times, which dealt with its naming, cost, and source of financing.^[1] That could form the kernel of a history section. The New Hampshire magazine piece cited in the article touches on restoration of the facility and temporary relocation to a new site. The gallery's hosting of traveling exhibitions by notable artists might be deemed run-of-the-mill for museums, but in articles about specific exhibitions, The Boston Globe and The Union Leader and have covered what sets it apart from other institutions - its permenant collection, exhibitions of works by faculty and staff, and the art collections of alumni.^[2][3][4]

The present article is short enough that it could be merged to Phillips Exeter Academy, but the topic has garnered sufficient attention from the world at large to meet WP:ORG independently. If all sources were mined thoroughly for content, the article could be expanded 3–5 fold, at which point it would no longer fit into the school. So keep and improve is the best option. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce I'm afraid I can't access the first article without a NYT subscription. alphalfalfa^(talk) 09:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alphalfalfa, contact WP:REFDESK. They can help. John from Idegon (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a NY Times subscriber, so I can get to the article. Technically, it is correct to say that it addresses its naming, cost, and source of financing, but that's making it out to sound a lot more than it really is. The entire article is three sentences, buried on page 63. And, given that it's credited to the AP wire service, it's a stretch to say the NYT covered the event. It's just filler. That hardly establishes WP:N. Here's a link to the article, but it's behind the paywall. Hopefully, somebody who has access to The Boston Globe can evaluate that article for us, but if it's not any better than the NYT article, I'd have to say we should delete this at not having sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Actually, thinking about this more, a redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy seems like an even better alternative then outright deletion. This is all based on the sources I can see now. If somebody can show that the Boston Globe article covers this in depth (or other good sources), I could be convinced to change my mind, but for the moment, I don't see how keeping this makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy per Rhododendrites - not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's already mentioned in the parent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @RoySmith: I'm sorry the paragraph in The New York Times was disappointing, I didn't intend my description of it to be disingenuous. "Covered" does make it sound like they sent someone there, a better choice of word might have been reported or printed. I was trying to make two points with the NYT. First, the gallery has been noticed outside New Hampshire, so the organization doesn't fail WP:AUD, which wasn't obvious from the sources already cited. Second, the NYT could be the starting point for a history section, something currently missing from the article. I did not mean to imply that the NYT alone established the gallery's notability. WP:ORGDEPTH tells us to use multiple sources when depth of coverage is not substantial, and the NYT could be one of those sources.

If you email me, I can reply with some of the sources, including the The Boston Globe, attached. It's about celebrations throughout the school, with only a small portion about the gallery. The most directly relevant quote is "... began Friday with the opening of an exhibition of tribal art at the Lamont Gallery at the academy. The primitive art collection of the late Michael Clarke Rockefeller (class of 1956) is on loan from the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art." An editor might also be able to make something of what it says later about Principal Lewis Perry, who undertook the academy's largest building program, and under whose leadership the gallery was built. The source is useful as a concrete example of something that several sources talk about - where the gallery's exhibits come from. They rent traveling exhibits, like many galleries, but one of the things that sets them apart from other galleries is that they have billionaire alumni with art collections that can be borrowed from places like The Met. The Boston Globe is another source that could be combined with others to establish notability.

A bit of searching turned up nine more independent, reliable sources. The longest (882 words) is an AP piece. It contains a bit about the location of the gallery and its rooms, and quite a bit about the new gallery director and curating for the gallery. It says exhibitions are often chosen to tie in with classes being taught at the academy, and gives a specific example.^[5] Four more sources address the planning and construction of the gallery. I don't have access to the full text, but from what I've been able to glean, they discuss all the things one would expect in a major construction project - planning bodies, dates, architects, cost overruns, etc.^[6][7][8][9] Another source I haven't read because it isn't free seems, based on its abstract, to strengthen the gallery's claim to notability as a tourist attraction.^[10] The final three sources are short ones. Two discuss arrivals or departures of directors.^[11][12] Articles about museums often include something about the directors/curators, either in a management section or woven into the history section. At least one director, Cabot Lyford, is notable. The third short source is another article from The Boston Globe. I'm not sure I'd use it if I were writing the article, but it talks briefly about an academic committee formed to censor a gallery exhibition the academy was concerned might not be wholly appropriate under the circumstances.^[13]. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article as written does not adequately indicate the notability of its subject... but the sources Worldbruce found do, and that's the standard that needs to be met. While this one is a close call, I think the sources available demonstrate sufficient notability. It would be good if someone could rewrite the article to better demonstrate that. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:36, 20 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 Procedural close. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Yavneh attack[edit]

2017 Yavneh attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS Article about stabbing attack with 1 injury. Received minor international media attention. Suggesting it to be merged into the 2017 Temple Mount crisis article.JBergsma1 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @JBergsma1: how did you create this AfD? Did you follow a template or freelance it? In its current state, the page is missing some features that I am sure you are familiar with at other AfD discussions. Could you address this for other editors coming to this discussion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheGracefulSlick: I've been trying to put this AfD to the discussion page, but as I tried to put this article there according to the guide to AfD I didn't succeed in posting it there like the other articles. Only the sentence above appeared. I'm kind of new to this part of wikipedia, so indeed I could ask some users for help.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mizal Zaini[edit]

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

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

Non notable actor and enterntainer Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as coverage found. E.g. http://www.star2.com/entertainment/music/music-news/2017/08/07/datuk-ac-mizal-4u2c-fiona/ http://epaper.mmail.com.my/2016/08/10/hey-jude-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I also found plenty of coverage (albeit some in non-English sources) especially when I searched on "Datuk AC Mizal", his stage name, rather than his real name. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:22, 20 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Johnston[edit]

Kevin J. Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a white supremacist[1] who has received a burst of media attention, but is otherwise non-notable. Fails WP:1E. - MrX 19:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- he's actually received attention on several occasions, not just for one incident. Nixon Now (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E is not limited to single "incidents" — a longer-term process can still be a single event. For an example, a person who runs as a candidate in an election doesn't escape BLP1E just because they held multiple campaign rallies during the course of the campaign — the entire campaign is a single event. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he's gotten attention, but so what? Trump and the other hatemongers have driven a lot of nonsense into the open, so much so it's run of the mill. I see a complete lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We are not a directory or webhost for random white guys screaming their hateful views on the Internet. Wikipedia is a charity subsidized by the taxpayers of my state, and we have a fiduciary duty to care for those resources. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I don't like him either but he has received significant coverage in Canada for being the first person in 30 years to be charged with promoting hatred. Detesting an individual is insufficient cause for deletion. Nixon Now (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • David Popescu begs to differ with that 30 years claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps - and I see David Popescu (politician), who I would argue is less notable (though no less odious) than Johnston, has a wikipedia page. Nixon Now (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Popescu is more than a BLP1E, because he has multiple distinct events of odiousness for multiple distinct and unrelated reasons. Johnston is not — all of the coverage stems to the same base event. And even then, if somebody were actually to nominate Popescu for deletion I'd probably support them on it because it was fairly low-profile and predominantly local news that hasn't stayed as enduringly relevant ten years later as it may have seemed at the time — I didn't even think an article about him was warranted when it got created, I just didn't feel any desire to fight the creator's conviction that it was. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for mayor is not a notability-conferring (or even notability-assisting) event, so the only notability claim we can assess this on is the YouTube videos. But that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic we need to maintain an article about — the fact that the YouTube videos got him into the news more than just once does not constitute distinct events for the purposes of clearing BLP1E, because BLP1E isn't just about counting isolated incidents of coverage: if all of the isolated incidents derive back to the same base activity, then that's not a series of discrete events but merely the process of 1E playing out. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment More non-trivial coverage. What Happens When An Anti-Muslim Internet Personality Begins To Face Consequences Nixon Now (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not supporting anything that would make him more than a BLP1E. Also, Canadaland is a podcast and not a GNG-aiding source. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 13:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xalid Rashid[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources about the subject. Possibly there are Kurdish sources that could be brought forth to demonstrate notability. - MrX 22:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have created this article Xalid Rashid under the guidance of Xalid Rashid himself. He told me to create this article and all of the informations are from himself personally. I have evidence for this as I have contacted himself directly. Thanks. --Diyar se (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable and only original reserach. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 22:11, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ou-joon[edit]

Kim Ou-joon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only reference is not about the subject— this appears to be a desperate bid at notability. If there are additional Korean references to verify notability, please include them— I was not able to find substantive discussion in reliable independent English sources, and do not speak Korean. KDS4444 (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 28 July 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. SoWhy 13:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoro (musician)[edit]

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

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

Subject lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't bring up reliable sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:37, 16 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. SoWhy 15:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaobaihe Kindergarten[edit]

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

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

See school notability. Pre-secondary schools must meet either general notability or organization notability, and this school does not. Pre-secondary schools are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The article does make a claim to notability - that it is a major research centre for preschool education. One of the citations is to a Xinhua article about the school providing China's team for an international event, which would be one step towards WP:GNG significant coverage. Another describes a research project involving some kindergarten children, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention of this kindergarten, so we only have the Sissi Liu's claim that there is any link to the school. And such research projects are usually anonymous, so I can't see how this could become an article. Matt's talk 12:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've tried my best to change my setting and open Visual Editor page, but I failed on this page. Please don't mind my format. To make Xiaobaihe Kindergarten's notability more convincing, I've added more reliable sources such as China Sports Daily and Young Children Basic Gymnastic Promotion Council. There's also a link to Day Day Up Program (you can wiki it) of Hunan TV. As for the reference of a research project published on the journal, the report was written by Cao Hui, the former principal of the kindergarten. The other papers or reports written by her can be found on VIP database.Those pages shows that she's from Xiaobaihe Kindergarten. Sissi Liu 23:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC+8)

• Delete elementary schools normally are not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 10:32, 14 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. czar 18:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God of a man[edit]

God of a man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

recreated page, deleted 03/08/17 I think Roxy the dog. bark 08:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt if necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete recreation of God of a Man. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a self-published book on Amazon, no secondary references, no claim of notability, atrocious article quality. This should not be a controversial deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  15:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Union cities proper by population density[edit]

List of European Union cities proper by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:DEL7. I cannot find a source other than taking the figures from individual countries' official sources, but this would be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. We cannot be sure the data is complete without an aggregate source. There could be many small dense cities that have not been identified by editors. Also, the principal of comparing municipalities across countries is flawed as the way countries are divided administratively is incomparable (which is likely why there are not sources). Urban areas and their densities are much more comparable, though that would be a different article. Rob984 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYNTH. No proper sources to verify data. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Here a a couple references that discuss city density in European cities: [2], [3]. There is also List of cities by population density demonstrating that such a topic is possible to cover responsibly. This article is a good start and we prefer to improve flawed or unfinished articles, not delete them. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that they don't actually compare the population densities of cities proper. The first source looks at local administrative units (LAU2), which are not often actual cities (they can be administrative districts of cities and similar, such as London Boroughs). The second just seems to talk about cities in the sense of urban areas, not city proper. We actually have a list of urban areas which allows you to sort by population density: List of urban areas in the European Union (cited to a aggregate, although possibly not reliable source)

And also List of cities by population density does not have a aggregate source and is plain synthesis too. It's even tagged "The list is incomplete", so it's probably inaccurate in terms of the ranking, and certainly not a good demonstration of how such a topic should be covered.

Not every country is like England with less then 100 cities. Just take France for example. There is no special "city" designation, and the entire country is covered by communes. There are 36,681 communes. All it takes is a few very dense communes which qualify as "cities" to put any synthesised ranking way off.

Rob984 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob984: Couldn't this be addressed by laying these limitations out in the article's lead? ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: It's not just a "limitation", the list could be completely wrong. The only way you could have (under the current title) a list which is considered reliable, without a single aggregate source, would be to have sources for the densities every single municipality in Europe which is considered a "city".

Realistically, you could have "list of cities with over X inhabitants by population density" or "list of X most populous cities by population density", and probably cite them all (limiting the list to say, the 100 most populous cities).

But another reason not to synthesise lists is that there isn't evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. A reliable aggregate source demonstrates a list has notability.

Rob984 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive the two refs I provided above make a good case for WP:N. You have just suggested some ways to improve the article to address some of the concerns you have raised. Article development on WP is not often linear. If we deleted everything that ever got off track, we'd be less productive. I am sticking with keep and I have justified my position and I respect yours. Per WP:VOTE Ajf773 and Power~enwiki are going to need to give us a bit more than a thumbs down. ~Kvng (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in my view keeping articles in this state is not helpful to productivity. This isn't a case of just needing a some improvement. It needs someone to take the time to create a well-researched list from scratch. The current article is not a basis for anything. As far as we know, it's completely wrong. Policy is clear, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. When an article only contains OR, that's perfectly reasonable grounds for deletion. Rob984 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they are only demonstrating notability for what they actually compare, they don't compare city proper densities. An article comparing the densities of "local administrative units" or urban areas is a different article. Eurostat uses many different standardised measures to avoid directly comparing municipalities across countries (because they are not comparable).

Rob984 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment due to widely-varying laws at the national level as to what the boundaries of an urban area are, this list will necessarily be problematic. As there are no sources for any of this data, it is even more problematic. Is Vatican City more dense than these cities? I'm not sure the question even makes sense, and the page as a whole has the exact same problem. It's also redundant as a stand-alone article to many other lists of cities and should possibly be deleted as a POVFORK of several other lists on Lists of cities in Europe. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the rationale outlined in depth by the nominator and summarised very neatly by Ajf773. Anything but a simple "thumbs down", in contrast to the characterisation provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a good traditional type of encyclopedia topic, very accessible to children, etc. The arguments asserting it is impossible to create such a list are simply exasperating. Right, like the worldwide List of cities by population density it is an incomplete list. And the title does not and will not fully convey the obvious idea that the list will focus upon the denser cities. To suggest the top entries in such a list will be wrong because all 36,000 or however many rural communes in France are not enumerated in the list, is nonsense. Proof that the list can be created is accomplished by the fact that the list has been created. --doncram 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just added ((expand list)) templates to this list and to the world-wide list, and made other revisions. Note, this subject list is kind of the inverse of the List of largest cities by area, which was recently at AFD (which closed "Keep"). That list has effectively been vandalized to include just one entry now; it is obviously a work in progress and also obviously it is a valid topic. See User:Cunard's identification of available sources for that list; identifying numerous sources for this list is equally feasible. There are plenty of sources available about areas and populations of cities. --doncram 15:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. The article probably should be retitled to List of European cities by population density, leaving explanation about "cities proper" being the focus for the lede of the article. It can be renamed after this AFD closes. --doncram 17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:doncram How are my arguments exasperating? They are based on a logical analysis of the topic. There are over 400 communes in France which have a population greater than 20,000 inhabitants. Many of these are very dense urban towns/cities which would easily rank high up in an extended listing. Both Grenoble and Villeurbanne are denser then Bilbao ("6th" on the list), and that's just two French cities which I guessed of the top of my head. How the hell is this a "nonsense" argument?

And what about the many communes in the suburbs of Paris, Lyon, etc? For example Levallois-Perret, with a density of 26,000/km², denser then the commune of Paris ("1st"). Do we include them? If so, all of the largest "cities" in Europe will be Paris' suburbs (Vincennes, Montrouge. Levallois-Perret, Boulogne, Courbevoie, Asnières-sur-Seine, etc. are all denser then Paris proper). And who are you or I to say if whether these are "cities" or not? In France, we don't really have the concept of cities, just towns. Cities in England on the other hand can be villages, just because they have a cathedral.

I'm only talking about France here, but the problem is obviously much greater when you take into account the other 27 member states.

Changing the name of the article to something more ambiguous doesn't really address the problem at all: this article currently has no informative content.

Adding a tag on this article doesn't change the fact that the its content is unsourced, and as I have pointed out, factually wrong. I waited before replying to your comment to see if you were actually going to do anything to fix it. Instead you just added a citation which does not support the content of the article at all. If anything, it demonstrates that Eurostat does not see city proper densities as a comparable measure (since they don't compare it). You claim there are sources yet you can't even fix the list of 10 cities? If the sources existed, that would take 5 minutes to correct. If it's so "feasible" why don't you do it? It's not a valid topic if there are no sources. It's not a valid topic when Eurostat doesn't even consider comparing city proper densities. Please demonstrate the notability of comparing city proper by providing a reliable source.

If this article is kept and remains in its current state (as it likely will), it just undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. Nothing is lost by deleting it, anyone can still draft a new list which is correctly sourced. The current article should never have been allowed in the mainspace.

Rob984 (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob984: we have specific criteria for what's allowed in mainspace. Your original contention was that it should be deleted because of WP:DEL7. I think that's been shown to be a not-strong argument. I'm having trouble mapping your more-recent arguments to policy. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL6 "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including... original theories and conclusions".

WP:DEL7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed".

WP:DEL8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline".

You have not demonstrated any of these not to be the case. Please find reliable sources so that the article is not in breach of WP:NOR and has demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY.

Rob984 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly adequate refs to be found. There is one citation in the article and I found two others with a quick search (posted above). I see no problem meeting policy requirements for inclusion and producing a verifiable article. The subject has established notability. The only problem is you are not convinced and it doesn't look like there's anything that can be done to change that. It is for situations like these that we do not require unanimous consensus and do not delete if even a rough consensus cannot be reached. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the references you provided do not support the content in the article. And again, as I've said, if anything they demonstrate that such a list (comparing population density of city proper across the EU) is not a notable topic, given Eurostat, the statistical agency of the EU, does not make such comparisons (despite comparing the population densities of many other comparable statistical areas). The list section is currently tagged as "This section does not cite any sources", and correctly so. You provide no references for the list, and there is no evidence a list of cities proper by population density is a notably topic. I don't by any means advocate removing articles just because they are bad, but when an article can't be demonstrated to have the potential be brought up to standard (despite your attempts to fabricate an argument that it can be) and meets three different criteria for deletion, it should be deleted. AFAIK, a clear consensus isn't necessary for an admin to concur from this discussion that the article meets those criteria. Rob984 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The role of the closing administrator (or non-administrator) is to assess consensus not policy. See WP:NHC. ~Kvng (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus takes into account the community consensus on policy. This means the closing editor can discard arguments which contradict policy, such as claiming that this article can be amended to comply with WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY and that its topic has notability, based on the fact that you found sources which refer broadly to the topic of population densities in urbanised areas, and make no reference to city proper. WP:NOR clearly states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". I've demonstrated that the list is inaccurate and unsourced, and you've failed to provide any substance as to how this can be rectified. And without a reliable source for actual the topic of the article, i.e. the list, you've got no evidence it has notability. Rob984 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Rob984's main objection seems to be that there are a number of small-area communes around Paris and perhaps elsewhere in France which have high densities, which may seem surprising to readers when they see them. These could easily be eliminated from the list by restricting it to cities having areas greater than one square mile (which leaves Paris itself in the list). And/or those odd cases can be covered in a second list within the list-article. These are concerns for editing, to be discussed at Talk page of article, not reasons to delete the article. Again, there are obviously numerous sources on the areas and populations of cities. --doncram 17:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you or I to decided the criteria? And why would a list which criteria you or I have determined have notability? Some suburbs of Paris are considered distinct towns. But you want to exclude them because they're small? Dense cities are either small, highly populous, or both. Can't you see how that's a completely flawed criteria? And regardless its WP:SYNTHESIS.

France is a country I've lived in. I don't know what the situation is in Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc. which have similar administrative arrangements. They could have the same problems, if you want I can look into them.

Rob984 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to "Who are you or I to decide the criteria": per guidelines for standalone list-articles, the editors concerned about a list can decide for themselves what are the list-inclusion criteria. You and I are equally allowed to participate. I want to acknowledge you have made a good point, about the small French communes. I think it means we should revise the criteria for the list-article, not delete the list-article. Specifically, I suggest the arbitrary but probably reasonable cutoff, that we want the main list of the list-article to cover cities of one square mile or more in area. --doncram 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can decide what criteria to use from reliable sources, we cannot just make up a arbitrary criteria. Policy certainly does not advocate making up a criteria. Like I keep stating, we have no reliable sources. And sorry, but being frank, an arbitrary criteria which removes the highest ranking entries in a list is absurd. An arbitrary cut off point on a list (e.g. 100) is fine, but that wouldn't help with the main problem with this list: we have no way to reliably identify the densest cities in the EU, whether that be the top 10, top 100, or whatever amount. If you're going to rank a city as the 5th densest in the EU, you need a reliable source which states so. We have no way to achieve an accurate data set of even just 10 cities, so I don't see how any criteria would help. Rob984 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we can make up arbitrary criteria and use them. It is technically a requirement for list-articles that there be some coverage of the topic, i.e. some discussion of the group (i.e. mentions of population densities of European cities, which has already been found in a source or two). But there is no guarantee that sources will be available that define cutoffs nicely for Wikipedia's editing purposes. It is an editorial decision. In practice, we have to make such decisions. I grant freely that having sources support some definition so it seems less like Original Research or whatever is better, but it remains a fact that in practice we have to make our editorial decisions. I have some experience suggesting an arbitrary cutoff, e.g. for 10 or more branches being required for a pizza chain to be included in some list-article of pizzerias in the United States (hmm, not Talk:List of pizza chains where 100 is suggested by someone else), which no one liked. No one likes arbitrary-seeming criteria, right, but it is not always possible to avoid them. --doncram 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sources comparing the population densities of city propers, which is the what this list intends to do. And like I said, you can't just exclude the top ranking entries because they are problematic to identify. Why are cities with bigger areas any more significant? It just makes the list meaningless. And even if we did take such a criteria, you still don't have a way to identify the densest cities in the EU with an area of over one square mile. Until you can demonstrate this, you can't claim this article can be brought in line with WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I find it very strange that someone would oppose deleting an article which is unsourced and conveying out right wrong information, while at the same time being unable to demonstrate how it can be fixed and brought in line with Wikipedia standards. The integrity of Wikipedia is my sole concern here. Rob984 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree that the problems can be fixed by editing or discussion on the talk page, as is repeatedly insinuated. I also note that nobody is attempting to do so. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are now turning to discussion of the inclusion criteria for the list-article. I could right now go and open discussion at the Talk page of the article, but it is being discussed here for now, and splitting the discussion right now won't help. I think it should be shifted to the Talk page of the article after the AFD is closed "Keep". I am not insinuating that something can be discussed, I am discussing it. --doncram 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since apparently my problem is just with France, I'll point out that its even worst in Spain. As with France, the entire country is covered in municipalities (8,122) and there's no designation for a "city". An example of one is L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, located outside Barcelona, which is denser then any of the cities in the list. So I guess we need a list of all the municipalities in Spain by population density, all the communes in France, etc, etc? The problem is worst because of planning restrictions which mean towns and cities (which form individual municipalities) are very dense, even those with small populations. Just look at a population density map of Spain. Rob984 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a problem at all. The article notes 'By population, it is the second largest in Catalonia and the sixteenth in Spain. It is noted as one of the most densely populated cities in the European Union.' And it has >4 square miles area. Perfect to include it into this list-article. I am sure we can leave out most of the rest of the municipalities of Spain, which don't compete for being among the densist(sp?) in EU. -doncram 00:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we can leave out most of the rest of the municipalities of Spain, which don't compete for being among the densist(sp?) in EU.

Are you joking? Precisely the problem is that you can't know if one of the thousands of municipalities are amongst the densest. How can you identify only the densest? How can you know that there isn't a number of dense municipalities in Spain that you missed? You can't unless you know the density of every city in the EU, or you have an aggregate source which states it is a list of the top 100 or whatever. These municipalities and communes are just ones I can think of, off the top of my head. That should give you some perspective as to how many more there potentially are.

Rob984 (talk) 11:47, 19 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese association for the development of psychoanalysis[edit]

Lebanese association for the development of psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an eight year old professional association. The cited sources are either not independent or not relevant to the subject. I am unable to find other reliable sources that discuss the organization in any depth. The article was previously PRODed, deleted, and then restored as a reviewed article because of a technicality. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as far as I can tell. Maybe someone else can find a couple of sources so that the article can be saved. - MrX 12:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete besides problems mentioned in the nomination this article suffers from coatracking of topics not relevant to the association itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 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 no consensus. SoWhy 15:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip J. Bartell[edit]

Phillip J. Bartell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a film editor and writer, which just states that he exists and résumés his credits without actually demonstrating that he passes a notability criterion at all. As always, neither screenwriters nor film editors get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, but rather have to be reliably sourced as having achieved something that counts as a notability claim -- but the only reference present here at all is a blurb in his college alumni magazine which nominally verifies the fact that he worked on one film. This is not enough to get him an encyclopedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've begun adding secondary sources reviewing his work, but there are more here: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eating-out-2-sloppy-seconds/critic-reviews Meets GNG, NARTIST. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An interview and several peripheral references are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, the editorial commentary preceding an interview does count as secondary source material toward notability; additionally, there are numerous independent reviews of films he wrote and/or directed. In addition to those cited in the entry and above, here are more: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eating-out-all-you-can-eat Innisfree987 (talk) 05:11, 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 speedy delete per WP:G7. All edits after the creator's were merely cosmetic in nature. SoWhy 13:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Knights[edit]

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

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

An unremarkable, small-budget movie; significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories & blogs. Director does not have a wiki page, so there's no suitable redirect target. After the initial PROD, the article's creator left a message on my Talk page, supporting the deletion: "Although cheap films sometimes become "cult", this one didn't. I agree to a deletion" (diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment unfortunately I could only find one review at Dread Central here which is a reliable source for horror films but on its own is not enough unless someone finds more. Many small budget films are notable but so far this one doesn't seem to be Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 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 delete.  Sandstein  15:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatype Nexus[edit]

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

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

Non-notable software. Google search shows that it exists. No independent references, no independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Searches are turning up routine coverage (announcements, etc.). There are a few how-to postings at Medium but I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed for WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I'm only seeing WP:SPIP coverage; nn product. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 13 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. Even after three (!) relists there is nothing approaching a consensus here -- if anything the discussion drifted further from consensus after the final relist. A Train^talk 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elecom[edit]

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

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

• Delete Unremarkable company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I will repeat a bit of what I said about the same user's other nomination of a major Japanese IT corporation article for deletion. First, Elecom is, like I-O Data, listed in the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange (which is reserved for large corportations)[4]. As WP:LISTED states, the consensus is that public listing by itself is not sufficient to establish notability, "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion....Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." A search of Japanese business and IT news sites finds plenty of coverage of both the company and its products: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. Michitaro (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In light of information provided below.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- out of the three sources listed, one is the company's web site, another one is a 404, and the third one is ja.wiki. The number of employees listed (500) is more of a mid-size company, so we cannot presume automatic notability here. We should expect better sourcing from our articles; thus, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check any of the dozen sources I found? I also note WP:NRVE: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." You should comment based on the evidence presented and the evidence available through concerted searches, not based on what is currently in the article. Michitaro (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the updated sources are still inadequate as they merely link to stock listings. DrStrauss talk please use ((ping|DrStrauss)) when replying 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As SoWhy noted, the sources I provided are not all stock listings. In fact, the vast majority are not. Users voting on this AfD should properly check the sources provided and provide reasons for why they are not adequate if the user is voting delete. Michitaro (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you could pick three or less references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, you'll find editors are more inclined to look at them. Nevertheless, here's my take on them. The first four are all from the same source (www.nikkei.com) and are all company announcements therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. There are also 4 references from impress.co.jp that are likewise all company announcements or material sourced almost exclusively from company sources and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. The next from nikkeibp.co.jp is likewise a story that almost exclusively sources its content from company material and the CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.

The first impress.co.jp source is a good example of why other editors are turned off a large number of reference listings. This one is an as bad as it gets as a reference to establish notability. It is an advertorial reporting on an "event" held by Elecom for a new device complete with models holding the product, photographs of the product, instructions for use, price (excluding tax), obligatory photo and quotations from the CEO. Obviously, this reference fails WP:ORGIND. But by listing it, other editors will just think to themselves that the person who put it forward hasn't a clue about the requirements for establishing notability and not waste their time with whatever is remaining.

Moving on ... the digimonostation reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is a regurgitated press release (the link for the "official" press release is even provided at the bottom of the article) and uses much of the same description and the same photographs. The kabutan article is a business-as-usual commentary on the stock price and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The zaikei article is debatable - be aware I'm using Google translate - because there's a switch from using the third person "Elecom won..." to the first person " "we have already gained". If it is written by a neutral third party with no direct input (quotations) from company sources then in my opinion it qualifies as a source that establishes notability. We need a minimum of two sources to establish notability. If another source can be found, I'd be happy to change my !vote but as it stands, it is still a Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been quite busy and this response required time I really didn’t have. Also sorry for repeating some of wording of my response to the I-O Data AfD, but the two have been kind of proceeding in parallel and I don’t have time to write something completely new.

First, I have been rather frustrated with this AfD. From the nominator to some of those voting, I have seen a distinct failure to either perform what should be done WP:BEFORE nominating, or afterwards, to look beyond the existing article per WP:NRVE and perform one’s duty to consider the evidence presented in the AfD or to search for evidence on one’s own. Having participated in hundreds of AfD’s, this is nothing new to me, but I still feel the need to remind participants of what is necessary to participate in an AfD.

That is one reason I am not offended by HighKing’s comments in this AfD, even though I strongly disagree with them. At least HighKing has largely been doing what is necessary.

But HighKing is wrong on most of the points and reveals ignorance of both Japanese media and the corporate world.

First, HighKing’s dismissal of all the Nikkei articles is quite shocking, and is done with absolutely no evidence. Perhaps HighKing is unaware of it, but The Nikkei, as explained below, is the equivalent of the Wall Street Journal and, according to Wikipedia, “the world’s largest financial newspaper.” To argue that its news articles on corporate happenings lacks neutrality and is essential promotion is like arguing that the Wall Street Journal is an unreliable source. If HighKing can present concrete evidence that the consensus about the main source of financial and business news in Japan is wrong and that the Nikkei is an unreliable source, I encourage him/her to bring that evidence to WikiProject Japan. I doubt anyone would accept it. The Nikkei is an essential and independent source of news of the business world for investors and those in business. HighKing needs to prove otherwise to reject the sources I provided. Second, HighKing is completely mistaken about [17]: it an authored piece from Nikkei’s prime magazine and is written from an independent perspective. Can HighKing cite evidence that says otherwise? Third, as for Kabutan [18], it first might look like just providing stock market data for the company, but if you scroll down you can see that these are really just a top page that links to dozens of articles on the company’s stock and profits. In toto, they provide a wealth of detailed, independent reporting on the company—quite a lot for a free site. If there is a problem with [19], it is just that Elecom is merely featured in the article, and is not the sole subject of the article (I assume the question of the “we” in the article id a problem with Google Translate since there is no Japanese word “we” in the article). That is sufficient for considering WP:GNG. I see no problem with [20] or [21], especially since they are reporting on a major M&A that was reported elsewhere in the Sankei [22] and the Nikkei [23]. I will concede that some of the other citations may not live up to the standard of the Nikkei (again, I picked these up in a short time), there are aspects that are usable.

So of the articles I found after only a brief search of the net, I believe I have already provided HighKing with more than the three articles s/he asks for. But there are more.

I can also cite the existence of a number of articles from major business print magazines as indicated by the CiNii database [24]. To give people a sense of the articles, here are a few (with my translations of the titles):

“Research on Companies no. 60: Elecom,” Nikkei Business no. 1810 (2015/10/5), 62-67.

”Distribution Point: Elecom: Introducing Distribution Robots,” Logi Biz v. 15, no. 6 (Sept. 2015), 64-67.

”Reports on Companies with Integrity: Elecom: Celebrating Ideals, Growth for both Individuals and the Company,” PHP Business Review no. 68 (June 2011), p. 38-45

”Series: Winning Companies: Elecom—Making PC Accessories Attractive and Pleasurable through Data and Art Management,” President, v. 37 no. 2 (Feb. 1999), 168-171.

Note that all are multiple page reports on the company that go back nearly 20 years.

I will ignore HighKing’s statement that I don’t have “clue about the requirements for establishing notability,” since that itself was based on lack of knowledge both of me and of the sources I provided. Perhaps HighKing should re-read WP:CIVIL.

I should next note that it is not easy to find articles on any Japanese subject because of the way the major Japanese media use the internet. Most of the articles older than a week or two in the major national newspapers plus most of the major magazines are behind pay walls. This has been a major problem for all of us working on Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. To me, the amount I found in just a few minutes produced the reaction: “Wow, there’s this much on open sites.” By experience, we know that is a very good indication there is as much or more behind the paywalls.

This time, to get just a sense of it, I spent a couple of hours (I didn’t really have) checking the library databases of a few of the major newspapers.

To start with, I checked The Nikkei, Japan’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. A search of the database produced 800 articles in the Nikkei and its related publications that mention Elecom. Clearly many are incidental mentions, and quite a number are short reports of 200-300 words on the company’s quarterly reports and personnel changes (though the Nikkei of course only reports those if the company is a major company). I didn’t have time to check 800 articles, so I tried a few other keywords to get some samples. I am sure I missed many. Here are just a few of the substantial articles solely on the company I found:

”Elecom Releases 32 Devices to Mass Retailers: Smart Phones Now Closer to VR,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/9/27, p. 7

”PC Device Company Elecom Invests 20 Million, Aim to Double Sales,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/4/28, p. 13

”Elecom Increases Production 300% ,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/1/25, p. 17

”Elecom Steers towards Corporate Sales,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2014/6/4, p. 7

”Elecom, Major Company in PC Peripherals: HDD as New Cash Cow,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2011/10/15, p. 4

”Elecom: Centering on Smart Phone Related Business, Entering App Market, Strengthening Business Abroad,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2011/10/15, p. 4

”Elecom: Expanding Abroad, 300 Outlets in Russia and 150 in India by End of Year,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2007/10/29, p. 17

“Rookie Analysis: Elecom: Listed on JASDAC from Nov. 22, Focused on AV Devices” Nikkei Kinyu Shinbun 2006/11/10, p. 4

”Companies with Expertise: Elecom: Top Share in Mouses etc.,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2001/12/18 p. 29

”Elecom: PC Peripherals, Directing Space as a Set,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2001/8/1, p. 20

”Software Japan’s Trump Card is Tie-Up with Elecom,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1995/2/2, p. 7

”Rising New Ventures 14: Elecom,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/9/22, p. 30

”Elecom Secures Supply of LAN Devices from Taiwan Company,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/6/10, p. 23

”Elecom Focuses on Boards in Preparation for Stock IPO,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/5/12, p. 22

etc. etc.

I also tried some of the regular newspaper databases. Such business articles are rarer in these, and the truth is that many of the mentions are actually for the American Football team it sponsors (Elecom Kobe Finies [25]), which is in the top division in Japan, but there were still a few substantial articles on the company:

”Elecom Groomy: Green Hit,” Asahi Shinbun, 2003/5/24, p. 56

”The New Venture Age: Elecom,” Yomiuri Shinbun, 1996/1/6. p. 11

”Elecom: Source of Power is Sense of Speed,” Mainichi Shinbun, 2001/7/2, p. 9

If I may say so, it was easier to find articles on Elecom than I-O Data. That by no means indicates that I-O fails notability requirements, but it may indicate that Elecom is considered more notable by the Japanese media than I-O is.

Again, this is what I came up with in the limited time I have, using databases that, frankly, are rather clunky. But just the above makes it very clear that the company passes the requirements for notability (WP:GNG) on Wikipedia. Again, with experience participating in hundreds of AfDs, I cannot see any justification for deleting this article. Michitaro (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michitaro, this is way too long for an AfD and frankly most won't read it. You're still insisting that company announcements printed in reliable sources (doesn't matter if its the Wall Street Journal or the Nikkei) meet the criteria for establishing notability. It has been already pointed out to you that references such as those fail the criteria. Producing more of the same doesn't help your argument. Listing references (such as "Elecom Groomy: Green Hit") with no links or ISBN references doesn't help your argument. I tried to assist you previously by asking that you simply produce three references that meet the criteria. That is probably, still, your best response. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Your response is very disappointing and frankly difficult to comprehend. I provide loads of sources and evidence and you essentially ignore them. You say these are "company announcements" as if it is a fact but you have offered not one shred of evidence that these are company announcements and not--which is what they are--independent reliable reporting of the news. The burden is on you to prove it and you have failed, and you deny that failure by refusing to engage in constructive argument. I have shown that your argument is full of holes and misunderstandings. I have provided your three sources online and many many off-line sources. No where on Wikipedia is there a requirement that sources must be online. You can always go to the library to check these sources (I provided issue and page numbers). Now if you read WP:COLLAB and WP:AGF, you would try to work with me on this if you can't access these, but your attitude is not helpful here. I think that attitude undermines your argument here. Michitaro (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was asked to provide ISBN numbers, but ISBN numbers are for books and none of the references I provided are from books. So here are the direct links to the CiNii entries for the magazine articles: [26], [27], [28], [29]. Michitaro (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 1. I don't think it is an acceptable argument against notability to argue that someone has provided too many sources. 2. WP:CORPDEPTH says "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage," and goes on to provide a number of examples of trivial coverage. HighKing seems to go well beyond this when they reject the Nikkei Shimbun. HighKing has themselves said that the BCN award mentioned in Kabutan would establish notability. The full listings of those awards are here ([30], [31]) and they appear to be based on the point of sale data for the market share of various products. Many of these are trivial, but some of them are not - for instance (second link), Elecom has the highest market share of sales of computer mice - higher than Logitech. Furius (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why on earth would someone be expected to supply an ISBN for the Asahi Shinbun. Furius (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about being misquoted. I did not reject the "Nikkei Shimbun". I did not say the BCN awards were notable and that the award would establish notability. And LoL, what I actually asked for was a link *or* an ISBN number for the many many references listed by Michitaro since the reference are offline and nearly all editors here won't have access to those databases and of the online references posted by Michitaro, none pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do apologize to others for the burden caused by providing so many sources. I just felt that some on this AfD were not looking properly at the sources I provided, so I erred on the side of volume (though not on quality). I am still confused by HighKing's comments. On the one hand, s/he says that none of the online references I provided pass the criteria for establishing notability. I concede that a few are not that good, but HighKing has not responded to my defense of the others. What's odd is that HighKing says s/he is not rejecting the Nikkei when the fact that is exactly what s/he is doing, since five of the online articles I cited are from the Nikkei and its related publications. The argument that these are company press releases remains unfounded and basically calls into question all the corporate news gathering of the major financial paper in Japan (and one of the biggest in the world). I have the feeling HighKing should re-read WP:INDEPENDENT because there is a major difference between a website reprinting a corporate press release and an independent and third-party major news organization, with no conflict of interest, providing news coverage of what a corporation is doing. All the newspaper coverage I provided, including the online Nikkei coverage, are independent and significant RS that satisfy WP:GNG. HighKing has not shown they do not, but instead makes unfounded claims that essentially argue that the Nikkei only prints corporate press releases.

One problem, as I stated above, is that the Japanese media is protective of its content, and thus the major companies put their older material behind paywalls. So the majority--and in many cases the best (because you have to pay for the best)--coverage is either in print or in for-pay databases. So what to do? In previous AfDs where I have cited off-line sources, most participants have taken it in good faith that I am not making them all up and have used them as indication that RS exist (I don't recall an AfD where the article was subsequently deleted in such a case). We are, after all, not determining whether the article should be promoted to feature article status, but rather seeing if the weight of coverage tends towards WP:GNG. I sense that some here are not willing to assume good faith, so those participants may want to see the articles. I did provide the relevant bibliographic information for those who can use the databases or go to a library (which is what I did). The databases of all the newspapers I cited can be searched at any library in Japan and at many major research and even public institutions abroad. If there is a problem with not knowing Japanese, I suggest one solution: that someone neutral to this AfD or who has not yet participated make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for some members to check on the Japanese sources I have given to determine if they help satisfy WP:GNG, and/or to make additional searches to determine if those also help satisfy WP:GNG. I cannot guarantee a quick response (WPJ members are few in number and overburdened as it is), but this seems a reasonable option. Michitaro (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again the points I've made are being misrepresented and misquoted. I would prefer if you stop misquoting and misrepresenting what I have said and creating strawman arguments by falsely attributing statements and flawed reasoning to me. INDEPENDENT covers the criteria for establishing if a source is a reliable source but it does not mean that every article printed is an acceptable reference for the purposes of establishing notability. I've made the point several times and I have yet to see any indication that you understand the difference between a reliable source and a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. You concede that "a few are not that good" yet all the ones I have been able to examine fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. For example impress.co.jp may very well meet the criteria of INDEPENDENT but the individual article (and not the publishing entity) still fails ORG and CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this nikkei article fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH as it relies entirely on quotation from company sources - but I emphasise that my comment is about the article, not that the source fails to meet INDEPENDENT. I can only provide an opinion on the references I can access and since I have yet to see two sources that meets the criteria, I have no reason to change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am still mystified by your definition of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Most of the sources I provide do not fall into the long list of sources that don't count that those provide. Even the Nikkei BP article you cite satisfies WP:ORGIND. I do see that WP:CORPDEPTH mentions "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," but are you interpreting that to mean that any long article that contains even one quote from a company official fails WP:CORPDEPTH? Keep in mind that that criterion is under the rubric of examples of "trivial coverage," which the Nikkei BP article clearly is not. I would think the more reasonable interpretation of that criterion is that we are are not supposed to be considering very short articles made up mostly of quotes. So I really don't understand your application of this standard. But I should remind you that I have from the start been arguing on the basis of WP:GNG. Since Wikipedia:Notability states we only have to show the article "meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline," the article passes notability if it passes WP:GNG regardless of whether it passes WP:COMPANY. Since you accept that these sources pass WP:INDEPENDENT, you are admitting that they clear the basic requirements for considering WP:GNG. I have yet to see an argument that this fails to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While a source may be INDEPENDENT, it does not guarantee that each and every article published by that source can be considered "independent of the subject itself". In essence, by relying extensively on company produced materials and/or quotations from company officers, those articles are not considered "independent of the subject". WP:COMPANY expands on this and provides further clarification. For example, WP:ORGIND specifically excludes "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this AfD is several times larger and better-sourced than the article. Based on their website, the company is unlikely to meet any size-based presumption of notability, and there are no sources presented that prove notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NRVE. The current state of the article is not to be the basis of judging notability. And can you give your reasons for stating that "there are no sources presented that prove notability," especially after you say that the sources in the AfD are better. You seem to be contradicting yourself, since the sources in the AfD are sources to be considered when determining notability. Finally, can you cite Wikipedia policy that makes size an important factor in judging notability and that gives a guideline about judging size? Michitaro (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Electronics industry in Japan. If the subject were notable, after several weeks of discussion the article would describe how the topic is notable. In this case, simply being a brand name in one country isn't sufficient for being notable. However, it is a perfectly valid search term, so I support a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure a redirect to that article is correct - which criteria under WP:POFR do you see as appropriate. If List of Electronic Companies in Japan existed, I would agree that the company should be included in such a list. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Electronics industry in Japan, after adding it to that article with citation.. Not notable under the guidelines, but redirects are cheap. --Bejnar (talk) 19:03, 20 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. A Train^talk 20:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-O Data[edit]

I-O Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete Unremarkable company, fails notability requirements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The company is listed in the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange (which is reserved for large corportations)[32]. As WP:LISTED states, the consensus is that public listing by itself is not sufficient to establish notability, "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion....Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." A search of Japanese business and IT news sites finds plenty of coverage of both the company and its products: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], etc. Michitaro (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria for establishing notability for corporations such as WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND provide in-depth explanations on which references can be used to establish notability. Specifically, articles that rely on publishing interviews or repeating facts relayed by the company are not acceptable as they are not considered "intellectually independent". In my opinion, of the sources you have listed above, this one from itmedia meets the criteria. The others appear to be interviews or company announcements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, of the articles I provided, which I only accumulated in a few minutes of searching, [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] all can easily be considered independent, significant and reliable sources per WP:GNG. None of these fit the examples of trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH. They are from major news sources such as the Nikkei, the Mainichi, ASCII, and Nikkan Gendai. We can argue about interviews (which I included because they are easy to find), but WP:INTERVIEW summarizes the plusses and minusses with interviews, including how they can indicate notability in themselves. It is not hard to find more reliable sources if you take the time. A search of the CiNii article index finds a number of long feature articles on the company in the print business press over the years [53], including one in Nikkei Venture, one in Jitsugyokai, one in Modern Entrepreneur, one in Business Law Journal, etc. Sites like this and this give a number of regular stock and financial reports and analyses on the company (as one would expect given that it is a major corporation traded on the highest level of the fourth largest stock exchange in the world). These are all examples of what are considered sufficient in WP:LISTED. Any reasonable person would see this company very easily passes notability requirements. Michitaro (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as a listed company there should be information available that supports notability, but it doesn't look like there is. I looked for 15 minutes including many of the links included above and found absolutely nothing. It's been tagged for 5 years for a lack of sources, and nothing has shown up. There's only 1 ref , and 2 external links - all to the company's website. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think the many reliable sources from major news media that I provided above are "nothing"? Michitaro (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I noted on the other AfD for Elecom, if you could pick three or less references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability (as opposed to 10 or more), you'll find editors are more inclined to look at them. Also, from my analysis of the sources you provided at Elecom and here, it is very clear that you have not grasped what is required (and therefore what editors here are looking to see) for the purposes of establishing notability which are slightly different criteria that determining whether a source is a reliable source or whether facts provided by a company source or through an interview can be used in the article on a topic. That said, I would have expected a company as large as this one, listed on the Tokyo stock market to boot, to easily meet the criteria but this has been difficult and even with all the sources you have listed, not one source that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been found.

You've listed 3 unique references from nikkeibp.co.jp which all fail WP:ORGIND as they are company announcements and/or the article almost exclusively uses material created by the company. You've listed 1 unique reference from mainichi.jp which is also company material (and unattributed) and fails WP:ORGIND. This excite.co.jp reference is likewise unattributed to an author ("author YK" is all we have) and is a forecast for the future stock price but it fails as a reliable source since we don't know who wrote it or their credentials. Other editors might argue that it also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. You've listed two unique references for impress.co.jp - the first is a company announcement complete with powerpoint slides, product photos, photos of company execs doing a weird handshake thing and extensive quotations and material from company sources and therefore fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference along with this ascii.jp reference, this nikkan-gendai reference, this stereosound reference, this itmedia.co.jp reference, this advertimes reference, this weekly-economist.com reference and this itmedia.co.jp reference all fail WP:ORGIND as they are mostly transcripts of interviews with company officers and rely exclusively on company sources for the facts and material presented (and also not independent or third party because of that).

There is nothing in any of the sources that meets the criteria for establishing notability. My !vote to Delete remains the same. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been quite busy and this response required time I really didn’t have. First, I have been rather frustrated with this AfD. From the nominator to some of those voting, I have seen a distinct failure to either perform what should be done WP:BEFORE nominating, or afterwards, to look beyond the existing article per WP:NRVE and perform one’s duty to consider the evidence presented in the AfD or to search for evidence on one’s own. Having participated in hundreds of AfD’s, this is nothing new to me, but I still feel the need to remind participants of what is necessary to participate in an AfD.

That is one reason I am not offended by HighKing’s comments in this AfD, even though I strongly disagree with them. At least HighKing has largely been doing what is necessary.

But HighKing is wrong on most of the points and reveals lack of knowledge of both Japanese media and the corporate world.

First, for [54] High King offers no evidence for saying this is corporate material. Yes, it is an introduction of a new product, but are all introductions to new products corporate material? I might remind you that the Mainichi Shimbun is one of the major national newspapers in Japan, in line with the NY Times or the Washington Post. Second, as for this [55], HighKing clearly doesn’t know that the majority of articles in Japanese major news sources do not provide a byline. That is standard in Japan: it is the news agency that is the author and that is responsible for it. To reject all Japanese news sources because of this is to commit cultural WP:BIAS. Third, this [56] certainly is a report on a company announcement, but HighKing here failed to notice that it actually does name the reporter and anyone who reads it can see it is basic reporting, complete with multiple quotes, on a major collaboration between Japanese and American companies. (How much can HighKing read Japanese?) Fourth, again HighKing has not read closely the sources I provided, calling them all interviews. This [57], for instance, is not an interview, but reporting that quotes multiple people. By HighKing’s standards, is any news article that quotes people from, say the Trump administration, not independent reporting because of those quotes? That is absurd. This [58] is reporting on working conditions at the company and again includes independent reporting. As I said above, we can argue about the others that are in fact interviews (and interviews are common in business reporting in Japan), but WP:INTERVIEW summarizes the plusses and minuses with interviews, including how they can indicate notability in themselves.

So of the articles I found after only a brief search of the net, I believe I have already provided you with the three articles you ask for. But there are more.

I might add you did not address [59] and [60], which at first might look like just providing stock market data for the company, but if you scroll down you can see that these are really just a top page that links to dozens of articles on the company’s stock and profits. In toto, they provide a wealth of detailed, independent reporting on the company—quite a lot for a free site. You also did not address any of the articles from major business magazines I cited from the CiNii database [61]. To give people a sense of the articles, here are a few (with my translations):

“A Steadily Advancing Company No. 4: I-O Data,” Nikkei Venture no. 142 (July 1996), 46-49.

”Suffering from Triple Problems: The Plight of I-O Data,” Jitsugyokai no. 813 (Nov. 1996), 52-55.

”The Elaborate Legal Strategies of Local Companies: I-O Data,” Business Law Journal v. 2 no. 7 (July 2009), 84-86.

”Let’s Learn from this Company: I-O Data,” Kindai Chusho Kigyo vo. 35 no. 7 (May 2005), p. 43-51.

Note that all are multiple page reports on the company that go back over 20 years.

Next, HighKing’s statement that s/he expected more reporting on a company listed on the Tokyo market also reveals s/he doesn’t know much about Japanese media. Most of the articles older than a week or two in the major national newspapers plus most of the major magazines are behind pay walls. This has been a major problem for all of us working on Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. To me, the amount I found in just a few minutes produced the opposite reaction: “Wow, there’s this much on open sites.” By experience, we know that is a very good indication there is as much or more behind the paywalls.

This time, to get just a sense of it, I spent a couple of hours (I didn’t really have) checking the library databases of a few of the major newspapers.

To start with, I checked The Nikkei, Japan’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. A search of the database produced 2153 articles in the Nikkei and its related publications that mention the company. Clearly many are incidental mentions, and quite a number are short reports of 200-300 words on the company’s quarterly reports and personnel changes (though the Nikkei of course only reports those if the company is a major company). I didn’t have time to check 2100+ articles, so I tried a few other keywords to get some samples. I am sure I missed many. Here are just a few of the substantial articles solely on the company I found:

”I-O Data: Strengthening Sales to Small and Medium Sized Companies, Expanding Security Functions,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2016/4/14, p. 8

”Profiles of Rising Companies: I-O Data,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2015/5/21, p. 9

”Turning Point for 3 Major Ishikawa IT Companies: I-O Data,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2007/12/22, p. 8

”I-O Data: Ratio of Corporate Sales to 60%,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2007/12/3, p. 10

“I-O Data: Profits Rise as Deliveries of Personal Computers Recover,” Nikkei Kinyu Shinbun 1999/2/19, p. 16.

“I-O Data: Projected 4.5% Rise in Profits, First in 3 Terms,” Nikkei Kinyu Shinbun 1998/2/20, p. 17.

”I-O Data: Releases Self-Assembly Computer,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 1997/5/27

”Profiles of Newly Introduced Stock: I-O Data,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 1991/3/19, p. 17

etc. etc.

I also tried some of the regular newspaper databases. Such business articles are rarer in these (each averaged about 40-60 articles mentioning I-O), but there were still a few substantial articles on the company:

”Cyber Attack, Aiming for IoT? Major Company Routers Infected,” Asahi Shinbun, 2016/11/3, p. 38

”The Genealogy of IT 1: The Pioneers,” Yomiuri Shinbun, 2010/8/12. p. 27

”Healthy Companies, Expanding Companies: I-O Data,” Mainichi Shinbun, 1994/5/11, p. 9

Again, this is what I came up with in the limited time I have using databases that, frankly, are rather clunky. But just this makes it very clear that the company passes the requirements for notability on Wikipedia. Again, with experience participating in hundreds of AfDs, I cannot see any justification for deleting this article. Michitaro (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michitaro, just like in the other AfD, this is way too long for an AfD and frankly most won't read it. My points remain the same. You're still insisting that company announcements printed in reliable sources (doesn't matter if its the Wall Street Journal or the Nikkei) meet the criteria for establishing notability. It has been already pointed out to you that references such as those fail the criteria. Producing more of the same doesn't help your argument. Listing references (such as "A Steadily Advancing Company No. 4: I-O Data,” Nikkei Venture no. 142 (July 1996), 46-49") with no links or ISBN references doesn't help your argument. I tried to assist you previously by asking that you simply produce three references that meet the criteria. That is probably, still, your best response. Until then my !vote remains the same as "Delete". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Your response is very disappointing and frankly difficult to comprehend. I provide loads of sources and evidence and you essentially ignore them. You say these are "company announcements" as if it is a fact but you have offered not one shred of evidence that these are company announcements and not--which is what they are--independent reliable reporting of the news. The burden is on you to prove it and you have failed, and you deny that failure by refusing to engage in constructive argument. I have shown that your argument is full of holes and misunderstandings. I have provided your three sources online and many many off-line sources. No where on Wikipedia is there a requirement that sources must be online. You can always go to the library to check these sources (I provided issue and page numbers). Now if you read WP:COLLAB and WP:AGF, you would try to work with me on this if you can't access these, but your attitude is not helpful here. I think that attitude undermines your argument here. Michitaro (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can be any clearer than I have been but I'll give it one last go. If a reference uses phrases like "The company announced" or uses extensive quotations from company sources, it probably fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I would normally be happy to accept references that aren't available online but have been vouched as good, but given that the references you've provided fall foul of WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and you insist that they are good references, it isn't enough for me to change my !vote. Finally, just because I disagree with your references (and have pointed out why) and tried to give you pointers in order to help you make a good case (write less and to the point) doesn't mean I'm not trying to help. Also, pointing out COLLAB and AGF to any long-standing editor is usually taken as an insult. My final advice for you is to read very carefully what I have written and you'll find you've misinterpreted quite a bit, both my tone and my willingness to assist. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was asked to provide ISBN numbers, but ISBN numbers are for books and none of my sources are from books, so here are the links to the CiNii entries: [62], [63], [64], [65]. Michitaro (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I admit to being a bit more on the fence about this one, mostly because I don't understand exactly what they do, but articles like ”Suffering from Triple Problems: The Plight of I-O Data,” clearly aren't press releases; they are independent critical commentary on a company, which is a pretty good indication of notability. The Ja.wiki article for this company [66] is pretty long and is badly cited, but footnote 2 is independent and critical reporting of a controversy over a large scale redundancy, published by the Chunichi Shimbun. Both of these imply a notable company. Furius (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furius Any links? Because this link gives me a 404 - Page Not Found. Also, is it possible you can provide the opening two sentences from "Suffering from Triple Problems" reference? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have access to either of them, as it seems that they aren't online and they are not in my university library. The latter appears to be in the National Diet Library, if anyone is in Tokyo. Furius (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm therefore curious why you !vote Keep when you haven't been able to access either of the references you mention. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason that I'd vote keep for a topic which had had a book written on it that I was unable to access. My access to sources (relevently in this case, Japanese news media and business magazines) is not perfect. Furius (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do apologize to others for the burden caused by providing so many sources. I just felt that some on this AfD were not looking properly at the sources I provided, so I erred on the side of volume (though not on quality). The problem, as I stated above, is that the Japanese media is protective of its content, and thus the major companies put their older material behind paywalls. That is what happened to the Chunichi article (they even prevent the Wayback Machine from archiving them--I just checked for that one). So the majority--and in many cases the best (because you have to pay for the best)--coverage is either in print or in for-pay databases. So what to do? In previous AfDs where I have cited off-line sources, most participants have taken it in good faith that I am not making them all up and have used them as indication that RS exist (I don't recall an AfD where the article was subsequently deleted in such a case). We are, after all, not determining whether the article should be promoted to feature article status, but rather seeing if the weight of coverage tends towards WP:GNG. I sense that some here are not willing to assume good faith, so those participants may want to see the articles. I did provide the relevant bibliographic information for those who can use the databases or go to a library (which is what I did). The databases of all the newspapers I cited can be searched at any library in Japan and at many major research and even public institutions abroad. If there is a problem with not knowing Japanese, I suggest one solution: that someone neutral to this AfD or who has not yet participated make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for some members to check on the Japanese sources I have given to determine if they help satisfy WP:GNG, and/or to make additional searches to determine if those also help satisfy WP:GNG. I cannot guarantee a quick response (WPJ members are few in number and overburdened as it is), but this seems a reasonable option. Michitaro (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this AfD is several times larger and better-sourced than the article. Based on their website, the company is unlikely to meet any size-based presumption of notability, and there are no sources presented that prove notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NRVE. The current state of the article is not to be the basis of judging notability. And can you give your reasons for stating that "there are no sources presented that prove notability," especially after you say that the sources in the AfD are better? You seem to be contradicting yourself, since the sources in the AfD are sources to be considered when determining notability. Finally, can you cite Wikipedia policy that makes size an important factor in judging notability and that gives a guideline about judging size? Michitaro (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Electronics industry in Japan. If the subject were notable, after several weeks of discussion the article would describe how the topic is notable. In this case, simply being a brand name in one country isn't sufficient for being notable. However, it is a perfectly valid search term, so I support a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:26, 15 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. SoWhy 15:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Evergreen F.C.[edit]

Kerala Evergreen F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD removed for no reason. Club has not played in a national level at all and also fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - will play in the I League this season? WP:CRYSTAL kicks in and keeps it. GiantSnowman 09:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find me a source that says they will play in the I-League, I would like to see it. The AIFF recently released terms for expansion but no specific teams were announced. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now All the sources listed state that the club are applying to get into the I league, this does not appear to be a guaranteed thing yet, therefore WP:CRYSTAL applies here Seasider91 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Seasider; it can always be recreated if the club is confirmed to play in this league Spiderone 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now (or Userfy) - per WP:TOOSOON. The nominator and other delete !votes have illustrated the argument well enough. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:07, 17 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. SoWhy 13:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HaraHara Mahadeva[edit]

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

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

This article is clearly lacking information. It was unsourced, no references and written poorly. Mark Jhomel (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. "Lacking information," "unsourced," and "poorly written" aren't deletion rationales. Madg2011 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I agree that "lacking information," "unsourced," and "poorly written" are not reasons for deletion, the fact I can find no indication that this series actually exists is. I found not a single reference to this show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the GNG. Even though WP:ATA is a lame essay, I think it should be amended to include rationales to avoid. Nothing against this particular nom, though. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources call it a "popular" TV serial. Has gone over 100 episodes. I added a few sources but didn't change the text. Article should be renamed to "Hara Hara Mahadeva". Maybe it could be tied to other language Wikipedia articles. There were some awards but it looked like they were from that channel. They renamed the channel just before this program started showing. Maybe someone can use the sources to improve rather than delete the article. StrayBolt (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]