< 19 August 21 August >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Seems like there are too many unreliable/overly short sources for this article to establish notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Iordanidis[edit]

Georgios Iordanidis (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:NFOOTBALL as a footballer. No signs of notability, only trivial mentions about him on some websites. Probably article created and expanded by subject himself using information from his own Linkedin profile in a purpose of self-promotion Oleola (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently user Oleola is related with Wisla Krakow SA somehow because he removed this page from the coaching staff of the team's Wikipedia article (written documents about notability of employment as player, manager, scout and coach can be provided on request). The article is fully cited when it comes down to his career as a footballer, coach, manager and scout with the use of appropriate web articles according to the rules of Wikipedia. There is no sense of use of the term 'trivial mentions' because the page is referenced with many valid ways, such as individual quotes, newspaper quotes and web articles (documents can be provided from professional clubs i.e. Gornik Leczna verification of job status given by the club). The statements above are inaccurate as opposing user accuses valid references which adhere the rules of Wikipedia. Therefore, I consider this deletion proposal as a page attack and I ask protection for this page by Wikipedia. I have been an editor of Wikipedia for eight years and I have always respected the rules, I expect the same from Wikipedia. Skycraper (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a member of coaching stuff in Wisła Kraków, official club website does not confirm this.
Coming back to the bottom your biography is definitely not fully sourced, there are a lot of Wikipedia:No original research. References are not covering all claims in the article. There are also WP:NOTRELIABLE sources used like own Linkedin or FootballMercato also user generated profile or interview with yourself. The rest sources only trivially mentions you as a coach of amateur amputee football without wider context(not confirming the dates you used). This is not enough for WP:GNG. Most claims you put in the article can't be verfied because there is not significant coverage about yourself in reliable sources.--Oleola (talk) 10:35, 21 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  17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Einstein[edit]

Proper Einstein (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:MUSICBIO. Sources cited are PR blurbs, i.e. not WP:RS. Kleuske (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I went back and cited a couple of better references. I just hate to see this get deleted. It's not much but I worked hard on it. The Newbie06[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and cited a couple of better references. I just hate to see this get deleted. It's not much but I worked hard on it.

Better references? Where? Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 22 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 FAKE NEWS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of Donald Trump[edit]

List of nicknames of Donald Trump (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:POVFORK of List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States, WP:UNDUE. Also seems like a case of WP:RECENTISM (most of these nicknames won't be relevant in some years). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article not because of WP:POVFORK but because of the substantial number of nicknames in use. Claiming WP:UNDUE is in itself a judgement, if there are an equal number of nicknames that are non-perjorative, they belong here too, however I am unable to find them. (much praise for the President does not use nicknames, but generic e.g. "Best President ever". While I see some point for the argument of WP:RECENT, that is more a function of Trump having recently become President.Keizers (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:UNDUE. Lack of notability. --72.24.204.166 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:UNDUE. One could also argue it violates WP:NPOV. Jdcomix (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 01:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 01:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what I was saying. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 21 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. Despite a lot of discussion there is a surprisingly clear consensus to delete these articles because of notability and promotionalism concerns. I assume, though, that a neutrally written single article about the group might be acceptable to many, and might be a basis for userfying some of this content in order to integrate what is relevant into the recreated main article.  Sandstein  19:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Entertainment Group[edit]

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

This is a series of related articles created by what appears to be the same group of SPA editors (sockpuppets were confirmed for some recent edits but most of the suspicious ones are too old to check). All of these articles share the same poor sourcing and promotional language issues. In lieu of deletion, conversion to a redirect to Emperor Group might be a good alternative option.

Emperor Motion Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Capital Group Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Watch & Jewellery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor International Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Entertainment Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Media Group Holdings Limited, which is related. Yunshui 雲水 07:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The promotional wording was added to Emperor Entertainment Group by the new user Leoje 0192 (talk · contribs) in 2011. The article has existed since 2004, and in between 2004 and 2011 there are many neutral versions that can be reverted to. I have removed the promotional addition.

    The article has negative coverage of the subject, so it does not fail WP:NOT:

    In 2003, Albert Yeung was again under investigation by the ICAC, along with Hong Kong singer Juno Mak, for allegedly bribing TVB for the Jade solid gold awards. As many as 30 people were arrested in connection with corrupt allegations with preferential treatment of singers and controlling the music billboards.

    I do not see promotion in the other articles, but I would be grateful if you would point any out so I can fix them.

    Cunard (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for removing that wording. Valoem below also removed some, which is also appreciated. On the point of negative coverage: negative coverage alone does not prevent an article from being promotional. Its relatively common to see minor criticisms included in spam pieces so as to avoid G11 deletion by those who know who the process works, so the mere inclusion of this does not exempt an article from compliance with NOT. The ultimate question I ask in all these cases is whether or not simply having a Wikipedia article would be more prominent coverage than the subject has ever seen before, and if the article clearly exists with the intent of promotion. That is the case in all of these articles. It is therefore excluded both on notability grounds and on NOT grounds. The sourcing you provided does not comply with our standards for corporations under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. Deletion is the optimal outcome based on both the notability guideline and our exclusion policy as found in NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some additional promotional tones. Valoem talk contrib 15:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyBallioni: You make some good points. I didn't think about the fact that promotional wording in an article equals promotional intent. Thanks. And, oh yeah, the Wikipedia articles are the most significant coverage these companies have ever received - I am chuckling at that one - because it is true. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion on the notability of the subjects and the sources provided and the fact that the promotional content was only added later to some of the articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 18:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It had significant coverage in Chinese but not in English, if possible (if they all were subsidiaries), merge to Emperor Group is a solution. Matthew_hk tc 11:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, COI material is another thing. Some of the company such as Emperor Entertainment Group and Emperor Motion Pictures were notable and pass GNG as major music and movie label of Hong Kong. Matthew_hk tc 12:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • EEG & EMP are a major Hong Kong film studio & music label and should definitely be kept. Not only has Cunard shown comprehensively that they pass WP:GNG, but they have been a significant force in Hong Kong culture in the the last 30 years. The sourcing in our article is terribly weak now, but they are discussed in many SCMP articles; the difficulty is that "Emperor" is a word that comes up rather a lot in Chinese newspapers. In particular, there are many entries in the famous Lai See gossip column that assume Hong Kongers already know these firms. In addition, EEG is the only local label discussed in Ho's working paper on HK popular music, subsequently published in the journal Popular Music. I've also no doubt that there would have been far, far more articles in Hong Kong's thriving Cantonese press (which is national press coverage for this purpose). I tried looking for a Cantonese article covering the group as a whole but it was like looking for a needle in a haystack because of the vast amount of (non-significant) mentions in countless articles about various singers, films, and hotel projects. While Chinese Wikipedia does not carry any authority under our policies, I think it's interesting to note that EEG has its own template there and is the first in the domestic list of the record labels template.
The idea that WP would be the most significant coverage those two firms have achieved is very far off the mark. TonyBallioni has cited WP:NOT in good faith, but needs to explain what part he is referring to, because for these two subsidiaries, the only relevant part I can see is WP:NOTPAPER. ;-) The mentions of WP:PROMO must be referring to some earlier revision; the one I see now is fine and the EEG article discusses an ICAC investigation, which is about as far from self-promotion as you can possibly get!
  • AFAIK the other (non-media) subsidiaries don't have anything like this cultural impact and the articles about them can safely be folded into the main Emperor Group article with redirects. Matt's talk 08:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the citation was of NOTSPAM alone because Cunard's wall of text that does not satisfy the GNG is so hard to argue against because it's overwhelming. My view now is that it still fails WP:N/PROMK, the sourcing Cunard provides is trivial or promotional:there's a lot of it, but a Wikipedia article would still be the most significant coverage these subjects have ever received: that's enough in my mind to fail the GNG and NOTSPAM since there was clear promotional intent. I'd also like to note for the next closer that there was a clear consensus to delete before the relist, and that the relisting comment here borders on a !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The magazines of deleted New Media Group Holdings Limited was somewhat a household name in Hong Kong (which write Chinese, so you 99% can't build an article with English only source), it just not quite notable to knew they were sold and have the new owner "New Media Group Holdings". Mixing COI deletion and GNG deletion look awful BTW. Promotional material should be cleaned, COI should not be allowed, but if people keen on building pass GNG article but low importance, instead of creating high-importance one first, not sure it will "promote" the company or not even the editor was not a paid editor. Matthew_hk tc 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If COI was involved. The best way was delete and restart a new one. Matthew_hk tc 15:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little to none usable material that is not already present in the main article. Merge does not seem appropriate. Rentier (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I were to close this today, it would be defensible to close it as delete. But, I think it would be valuable to hear from @Deb, Kudpung, Rentier, Steve Quinn, and Yunshui:, all of whom commented early in the discussion, whether the sources, presented after they commented, change their opinion or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just one source. Most of the articles up for deletion had around one or two, if that. At least a couple are needed to satisfy CORPDEPTH. South Nashua (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your conclusion that one source is insufficient to establish notability. I provided more sources above and would be grateful to hear your thoughts about those sources.

    Cunard (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is irrelevant. Matthew_hk tc 04:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is relevant. The authors of the merged material must be attributed. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright, which says, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Attribution for these three edits is not possible with the article histories deleted.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely procedural note, keeping the edit history for the source material is just one way to meet the attribution requirement (albeit, the easiest and most common). As described in WP:MAD#Record_authorship_and_delete_history, other acceptable ways are citations in the edit summaries, or on the destination article's talk page. 00:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Keeping the edit history is the easiest and most common way to meet the attribution requirement. The only sensible reason to delete the history and do the other methods is if the edit history contains BLP violations or copyright violations so cannot be preserved.

Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and Cunard:As a reply to the procedural note only here: I believe that I should have fixed the attribution problem: because so little of the articles were actually copied, it was very easy to identify the copyright holder behind the specific sentence or clause that was copied. I've done edit summary attributions (seen immediately below). Since the authors of any part of an article own their contributions in whole and are licensing them to us under CC-BY-SA 3.0, this should be enough to satisfy our licensing criteria since the parts copied went unchanged after they were initially inserted into the articles, there are actually only one or two copyright holders to the material copied. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, thank you for pointing this out: I've fixed the attributions in the edit history per WP:RUD with the following three edits: [1] [2] [3]. If there are any other potential CC-BY-SA issues before deletion of these articles, please let me know so I can make the necessary attribution in history for copyright purposes. Luckily with Wikiblame it is very easy to identify the original author of every word so attribution shouldn't pose a problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That Northamerica1000 merged some of the material in the articles to Emperor Group demonstrates that there is information in the articles worth preserving and merging to Emperor Group. It would not help the encyclopedia to delete this content.

Cunard (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NA1000 added short 2.5 sentences that barely meet the standards for unique creative expression, and that anyone could have easily created on their own. The neccesary attribution has been provided for copyright purposes. As described above, keeping these articles does hurt the encyclopedia. I don't think we'll ever agree on that, but I did want to clarify how little content was copied for the closer or any other editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is more material from the six articles that can be merged to Emperor Group. Deletion would prevent that from happening so deletion would not help the encyclopedia.

For example, this content in Emperor Entertainment Group:

EEG was founded by Albert Yeung, a businessman in Hong Kong. The music label was originally called Fitto Record, until 1999. During the Fitto era, artist signed under the label includes Julian Cheung, Bondy Chiu, and the late Roman Tam. The label is affected by 1997 Asian financial crisis, which has caused the label, to be acquired by EEG in 1999. During the EEG's acquisition of Fitto, Nicholas Tse has become one of the artist rosters.

is neutrally written and can be merged to Emperor Group.

Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The parent organization for the six companies is Emperor Group, not Emperor Multimedia Group. The main article already contains (in my opinion sufficient) information about each of the subsidiaries. Rentier (talk) 09:17, 28 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  07:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LeanXcale database[edit]

LeanXcale database (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)

Technically about the product and not the identically named company that makes it, so taking it here rather than nominating for A7. Not really much to say here: the sourcing that exists is run of the mill coverage that confirms its existence but not much more. You have a Forbes contributor piece that turns up and mentions it, but for those unfamiliar with Forbes contributors, they are not actually on the staff and are independent from editorial oversight, which means that we typically don't count such pieces towards meeting the general guideline in WP:N. Otherwise, this is a pretty boring database. The article reads a bit like a brochure too, but not enough for G11, so the concerns with promotionalism also weigh on our considerations for deletion per WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for deletion: the parent company that I discovered after making the nomination. All of the reasons above apply to it as well:

TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above review is totally biased for an unknown reason. Only refers to the mention from Forbes and questions its independence. But it does not mention that LeanXcale is a multi-award company for its database product. The awards have been given by very different independent organizations with a very high reputation in the startup world: EIT Digital and Red Herring. The database has also been included in a market analyst report, total data from 451 research one of the main market analysts on the database arena together with Gartner and Forrester. The database has also been included in the main database ranking, dbengines.com. + I am also nominating the following article for deletion: the parent company that I discovered after making the nomination. All of the reasons above apply to it as well: − What is more LeanXcale is one of the few databases based on a granted patent that demonstrates its novelty. +

− More validation also comes from the startup world. First, one of the most important European startup accelerators, EIT Digital, has coached LeanXcale during 2016. Second, Bullnet Capital has invested in the company due to the high novelty of the database. + TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC) − LeanXcale database is simply quite notable by all standards.[reply]

− Now, I do not understand why a reviewer makes "subjective" insulting comments towards our database telling that is "pretty boring". LeanXcale is the only database able to scale to millions of transactions per second. I have been professor and researcher in this area for over 20 years. I am one of the most relevant researchers in the area of scalable databases with papers published at the top conferences such as ACM SIGMOD and the top journals such as ACM Transactions on Database Systems, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, etc. I have over 2500 citations from my papers. What is the authority of the reviewer to tell that LeanXcale database is pretty boring?

− Talking about promotionalism, it is stated that it looks like a brochure. Really? The article simply discusses technical features. Just compare it with any other of other operational databases such as Clustrix. What is the difference?

− Ricardojimenezperis (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (CET)

TonyBallioni is not true that all startups receive awards. Just below 1% receive awards. You also ignore the mention from 451 Research in their Total Data market analysis report. That is the most reliable source you have and ignores it. Also the fact that it appears in dbengines.com ranking. You also ignore to have a granted patent that most of the companies appearing do not have that is a process that takes several years and it is the only way to demonstrate the "innovative" character. Anyway, it seems that I have a conflict of interest due to I am founder and CEO of the company so I stop my discussion. But it is obvious that all database pages were written by someone asked by the company to do the writing and what contents to put there. Just look at the luxury of details on the funding rounds, who founded and so on, that only the founders and investors actually know. It is just not credible that someone out there without a relation to the company decided to write such an article and find out all that information. Ricardojimenezperis (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (CET)

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

The result was draftify. SoWhy 07:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German federal election, 2021[edit]

German federal election, 2021 (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 on the election after next. As has been shown at numerous AfDs (e.g. this), we don't keep such articles. Prod removed by article's creator. Number 57 21:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that this was a bit premature, but would prefer not to remove the article now, as it would have to be restored in only four weeks. Imho that would be a bit pedantic. Next time I will wait until election night, promised ;-). Alektor89 (talk) 14:32, 22 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  07:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DD Kids[edit]

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

This article was created in June 2015 [4] with a statement that the TV channel would be launched in November that year. The only working source present until today had nothing to do with any DD Kids channel. I have found some speculative news that DD Kids could be launched this year, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and right now this topic is not notable at all. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:59, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuğçe Melis Demir[edit]

Tuğçe Melis Demir (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:NHOCKEY, contested prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read WP:NHOCKEY, as you have clearly misread it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the sources that I could find and thought that this player did play at the highest level of competition in her country. Of course I take your word for her status since you seem a lot more familiar with hockey than I am. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbara (WVS): Sportsfan should have been more clear in their response, but the point was NHOCKEY has never used in a country as part of the guideline. It has always been in the world (either implied or directly stated) as ice hockey is not equally covered in every country like football. Yosemiter (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that if an athlete is playing at the highest level in their own country, but is not a global competitor, then they are not notable enough? I do page patrolling some times of new articles. My impression was that if any soccer player's foot touched a soccer ball even once in an amateur game, that earned them notability and a WP article. So it isn't the same for hockey? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbara (WVS): Sort of correct per WP:NFOOTY, if a player in the top level in their country (which in most cases are fully-professional) then they are considered notable per that SNG. But ice hockey is nowhere near soccer/football in world popularity and hence don't get nearly the same media coverage, even if said country even has an IIHF recognized hockey team (which many don't). If there were to be an in a country statement on NHOCKEY, that would lead to club team players in Egypt and recreational players in Panama having "notability", which obviously would be incorrect. All Sports Notability Guidelines should imply that the athlete that passes the guideline is 99% likely to be able to the General Notability Guidelines. Yosemiter (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemiter's clarifications aside, if you genuinely read NHOCKEY, you would have seen that it not only is a different SNG than NFOOTY, but that its provisions are entirely different. The logical (if farcical) conclusion to "the top players in any one nation-state are automatically notable" is that beer leaguers in Peru or San Marino are notable by definition, a bit of silliness to which the hockey WikiProject thankfully avoids. Ravenswing 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like she's on Survivor in Turkey per a US-based Google search ref, ref (just two of several different news items in Turkish). Perhaps better references can be found, the broken ones fixed with archive links, and/or a Turkish language expert coud help to improve and keep the article per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to redirect the article to Survivor Turkey, by all means; in no national edition of Survivor, of course, are contestants presumptively notable. Ravenswing 07:57, 27 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 07:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

İrem Ayan[edit]

İrem Ayan (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:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Not really. The fundamental question we need to ask of any article in terms of its suitability for Wikipedia is "Upon what basis does the article creator assert notability?" Here, it's that the subject's a hockey player. There's a guideline that sets forth the standards of notability for hockey players, which the subject here fails to meet, and which is entirely appropriate to cite. Ravenswing 07:40, 27 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 07:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seda Demir[edit]

Seda Demir (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:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The fundamental question we need to ask of any article in terms of its suitability for Wikipedia is "Upon what basis does the article creator assert notability?" Here, it's that the subject's a hockey player. There's a guideline that sets forth the standards of notability for hockey players, which the subject here fails to meet, which is entirely appropriate to cite, and which shouldn't be any great puzzle to figure out why it's mentioned. Ravenswing 07:42, 27 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 07:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Jasmina Decu[edit]

Maria Jasmina Decu (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:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since women's leagues are not even mentioned in the NHOCKEY guideline, I wonder why you refer to it so often for articles about women's ice hockey? Yes, WP:GNG (which supersedes NHOCKEY anyhow) must be met and must be met for any male player articles as well. Hmlarson (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The fundamental question we need to ask of any article in terms of its suitability for Wikipedia is "Upon what basis does the article creator assert notability?" Here, it's that the subject's a hockey player. There's a guideline that sets forth the standards of notability for hockey players, which the subject here fails to meet, and which is entirely appropriate to cite. Ravenswing 07:41, 27 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 3D printers[edit]

Comparison of 3D printers (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)

Notability is not temporary. This list can go on indefinitely, lacks very notable printers (e.g. RepRap Prusa), and reads like a commercial catalogue. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. It has been WP:PROD'd before for "WP:NOTCATALOG. This is a list that also violates WP:LISTCRUFT - we do not collect indiscriminate information" Rubdos (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has been in WP:PROD by User:Gbawden, and that this has been removed by User:DGG (reason: needs sourcing, but we have many such articles). I would want to know what those other many such articles are. I notified both users. Rubdos (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we remove all variations of a brand (e.g. Stratsys), this would become a Comparison of 3D printer brands, and there wouldn't be a lot to compare anymore. If we keep listings of which there exist articles, would that include e.g. Ultimaker#Ultimaker_2, which is merely a header of a brand? In any case: I think it is wrong to list prices on Wikipedia; would there be objection to removing that column at least? That kind of data is very volatile. Rubdos (talk) 07:44, 21 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. Article has also been improved since this AFD opened. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Mullen[edit]

April Mullen (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 director, who has a potentially valid notability claim (a film that premiered at a major film festival) but isn't reliably sourced. Of the seven sources here, six are either primary sources (her own website, content where she's the bylined author of the piece, etc.) or blogs that cannot assist notability at all, and the only one that's actually an acceptable reliable source (Niagara Falls Review) just namechecks her existence in the process of not being about her. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but a film director isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she needs to be substantively the subject of reliable source coverage, not blog entries and a self-published website, to get over WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added citations from Canada's leading newspaper and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that I hope bolster the case for notability, as well as mainstream LGBT media review sources that are independent from the subject person. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't. She's the author of the CBC piece, so it doesn't assist notability at all — people get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the author of the article's sources. Of the two Globe and Mail citations you added, neither one is about Mullen at all — one is a brief blurb review of a different film, and the other just briefly mentions Mullen's existence in the process being fundamentally about the film's writer, Stephanie Fabrizzi. And AfterEllen is a Q&A interview where Mullen is talking about herself, which thus does not demonstrate notability for the same reason that her self-published website and the CBC source don't: a person doesn't get to hype themselves into Wikipedia by talking or writing about themselves. All of those new sources would be acceptable for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger ones — but none of them count a whit toward the initial meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations of other people talking about her, giving her an award, seeking her comment, and giving her work based on her accomplishments and notability. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're still not really getting it. The only awards indicated here are "Birks Diamond Tribute" and "Niagara Falls Arts and Culture Wall of Fame", which are not awards that count as notability claims — a person has to win an award on the order of the Canadian Screen Awards or the Oscars or the Emmys or the BAFTAs to be considered notable for being an award winner, not just any random local award that exists anywhere at all. Being the interview guest on a TV show still fails what I said last time about AfterEllen: she's the one talking about herself. Being a soundbite-giver in an article about another thing doesn't assist notability, because it doesn't equate to being the subject of the coverage: Mullen still isn't the subject of "Female Directors Face Closed Doors in Canada, Study Finds", but merely gives that article's writer a 28-word quote in an article that's about a broad theme and not about Mullen herself — the article actually says more about Erika Linder than it does about Mullen, and Erika Linder isn't even a director. So no, you still haven't added any references that actually strengthen the case at all — 16 footnotes, and we're still at zero for footnotes that count as notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It would be harsh to tell Ms. Mullen that her TIFF trinket is "just any random local award that exists anywhere." Canada's leading newspaper, broadcaster, and multiple online mags are giving her attention and seeking her out for comment because of her notability. If Wikipedia only listed filmmakers who earned CSAs, Oscars, and Baftas, we'd have to cull a lot of articles. Mullen has accomplishments in several related fields; she's not a Kardashian, all of whom have Wikipedia entries -- even Khloe. Yes, one of the cited sources is primarily about Erika Linder, and it's hardly unusual in Wikipedia to use a part of an article to substantiate a claim. Admins know that, so I'm baffled by the sledgehammer reply, sneering putdown of Ms. Mullen/Canada, personalizing, and the focus on the editor rather than the edits in the feedback above.
Part of the media attention Ms. Mullen has earned in turn has allowed her to speak, which in Wikipedia-land doesn't count -- I get that -- because it has to be someone else speaking about her. The irony is her message is that female voices aren't heard in Canadian cinema because men get all the big budgets, and the cited study validates that. And she echoed that finding from personal experience. And then -- this is delicious -- she is declared by Wikipedia admins as being not notable, validating that, indeed, her voice is not worthy of being heard. And that's how Ms. Muzzled, er, Mullen, didn't make it into Wikipedia. I appreciate the time spent on critiquing my proposed article and in listening to me. GetSomeUtah (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for starters, you might want to double-check who created our article about Below Her Mouth if you think I'm somehow prejudiced against April Mullen.
At any rate, one of the main reasons we insist on reliable source coverage about a person, as opposed to handing a notability freebie to everybody just because the article claims something that sounds interesting, is that because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we have no processes in place to prevent somebody who doesn't like her for whatever reason from editing the article to attack her, or inserting outright lies about her, or revealing unpublished gossip about her personal life. You might think nobody would ever actually do that, but you would be wrong — it happens all the time on here, and reliable source coverage is our only method of sorting out what's true and what isn't. We depend on reliable source coverage because it's the only method we have of ensuring that the article stays accurate. We don't insist on reliable source coverage to punish people: we insist on it to protect them from the damage that having a Wikipedia article that isn't properly sourced can do to a person's life and reputation. Having a Wikipedia article is not always necessarily a good thing: it's a double-edged sword with more negative consequences than some people realize, and so using reliable sources to properly support notability is how we manage that risk.
Oh, and incidentally, "Birks Diamond Tribute" is not a "TIFF trinket". It's not an award presented or conferred by TIFF — it's a PR event independently organized and scheduled to occur during TIFF, but not organized or presented by TIFF. So it's not equivalent to winning "Best Canadian Film" or "Best Short Film" or "People's Choice" from the actual TIFF awards committee. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the effort to clarify. GetSomeUtah (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Mullen has been interviewed and featured on one of the largest lesbian entertainment sites, AfterEllen. I have included a reference link here.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterEllen (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— AfterEllen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That's already been included in the article, and I've already explained above why it doesn't count. A Q&A interview represents the subject talking about herself, and thus works like her own self-published website and not like third-party coverage — it can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources, but it does not count toward the basic question of getting her over GNG in the first place. Also, I don't know if you're an employee of AfterEllen or just a random person who picked that as your username because it happened to be top of mind due to the comment you wanted to add — but if you are an employee then you'll need to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules, and if you're not then you'll need to familiarize yourself with our username policy which prohibits usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a Q&A interview. Also, there is a video interview with her at a major Los Angeles film premiere, along with the rest of the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterEllen (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a Q&A interview: it's plainly written in the format "AfterEllen: Q? April Mullen: A.", which is the literal definition of a Q&A interview. And video interviews don't count either, for the same reason. The only kind of source that can support notability in a Wikipedia article is one in which she is being written about in the third person by somebody other than herself. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is a measure of the degree to which the subject has or has not been the subject of significant and substantive coverage in reliable sources. You have yet to show any sources that count toward building a GNG claim at all, however — the article is still based entirely on Q&A interviews, primary sources, blogs, and glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her, and still lacks even one source that counts as substantive coverage in a reliable source for the purposes of meeting GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where's there any GNG, when every source in the article at all is either unreliable, self-penned or a mere glancing namecheck of her existence in coverage of something else? Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.afterellen.com/movies/511655-director-april-mullen-mouth-female-gaze
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 20:30, 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 redirect to Linaro#Linaro Community Board Group. It is possible that reliable independent sources could be found to support this article; the content can be developed at the redirect target until then. The preferences of editors in this discussion who have limited Wikipedia contribution histories is considered, but given little weight due to their likely unfamiliarity with Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. bd2412 T 23:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

96Boards[edit]

96Boards (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 had references, but they were entirely either from the subject's site itself (constituting a primary source and original research), or simple tutorials which mentioning the subject in passing, and were removed. Leaving this an entirely unsourced article. A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you slakr for the review, feedback and suggestions. I would like to update you and those who would be voting on this page for AfD.

* Suihkulokki (the one user with other old edits)
* Ric96
* KickStartKid
* Rafaelchrist
* Hegallis
* Mani_sadhasivam
Now I know this isn't SPI, and the point here is to come to consensus regarding inclusion. But I feel most editors would find the above stated references lacking in denoting notability, either being from manufacturers of the product, or from very niche and/or obscure blogs. Bundling that with the duck meatpuppetry is what led me to submit this AfD initially. Anywho, hope this provides some insight. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 15:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD is in desperate need of participation from experienced editors who are not connected to the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 20:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also good with this solution, as per the reasons brought up. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:52, 28 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  17:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Television Awards[edit]

Kerala State Television Awards (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)

Literally no references. A quick Google News search showed only passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:18, 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 as improved. bd2412 T 02:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernetz[edit]

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

This is an invalid disambiguation page. The Battle of Bernetz Brook is a WP:PTM as there is no evidence of the battle being known simply as "Bernetz" (the short name would be "Bernetz Brook"). Christian Berentz is close to being a valid entry, but his surname is "Berentz", not "Bernetz". There are also some other entries that all fail WP:DABMENTION as there is no Wikipedia content to link to. With no valid entries, this should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DABMENTION: If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. It's not "useful" for readers to be given a bunch of dead-ends. -- Tavix (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[S]ince linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. I was trying to argue that in this case it will. – Uanfala 22:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sending our readers to articles that don't mention the term does not help them find information about the sought topic. It does the opposite, to be frank. -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've got enough unsourced content to deal with, please don't be part of that problem. Do you have some sources to support these claims? -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABMENTION should be applied if there's no mention at the present. Why are you assuming content will be added in the future? Do you have a crystal ball? -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABMENTION applies regardless of this discussion. It is highly misleading to participants to make it appear as if the disambiguation page has more entries than would normally be acceptable. If anyone wants to supply to necessary references, they are more than welcome. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that should read "checked to see if it was linked from Bernetz"! PamD 11:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have also found evidence of the painter being called Christian Bernetz so have added that with source to Christian Berentz article; his entry in the dab page is thus justified. PamD 08:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:50, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Dudman[edit]

Jake Dudman (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 actor. Most of the coverage is in blogs and similar questionable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:50, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) reddogsix (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysus in comparative mythology[edit]

Dionysus in comparative mythology (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)

States the obvious. Lacks support and appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 18:21, 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 speedy redirect to List of Rocky characters#Union Cane. Snow closure.If the redirect is reverted, protection shall be sought. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Union Cane[edit]

Union Cane (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 about a fictional boxer from Rocky V. Union Cane does not have any significant coverage independent reliable sources to establish notability. The article is sourced entirely to the Rocky wikia, an unreliable source. Redirects to the film have been repeatedly undone. Whpq (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Claiming a character is "significant" or "deserving" without showing how he meets the WP:GNG is meaningless on Wikipedia. That won't persuade anyone here. Also note that he is a "former heavyweight champion" only in the context of a fictional movie. He is not a real person, and is not a real wrestler, so he certainly wasn't actually a heavyweight champion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 01:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Deal (song)[edit]

Real Deal (song) (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:NSONG. Multiple IP editors keep on replacing the redirect with an article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I have implemented all the usable ones. Hayman30 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Thirteen Assyrian Fathers. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 15:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse of Georgia[edit]

Jesse of Georgia (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:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. De-prodded without rationale. DrStrauss talk 17:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In case this AfD receives minimal participation I'd like to ask that the closing admin doesn't relist as I am fine with Metropolitan90's suggestion. DrStrauss talk 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of autonomous higher education institutes in Sri Lanka[edit]

List of autonomous higher education institutes in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK by Samankamal who has repeatedly tried to remove non state-owned universities from List of universities in Sri Lanka. When the removal was discussed every other editor opposed it. The creation of this article is a prelude to removing non state-owned universities from List of universities in Sri Lanka again. List of institutions of higher education in Sri Lanka was a previous POVFORK by Samankamal which was speedily deleted as WP:A10. Obi2canibe (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 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. Apparently not a place that exists at all. bd2412 T 03:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vošavka[edit]

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

This is not a Municipality of Bosnia and Herzegovina! Perhaps is a simple settlement, but there is not enough evidence that it even exists. Google return only few results and a part of them are unreliable (WP mirrors). XXN, 16:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:30, 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 merge to CAGE (organisation). (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 01:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Qureshi[edit]

Asim Qureshi (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 needs deletion. This is not a person of significant importance. The article has little information on the subject and very little can be found or cited on the subject. It also seems like an attempt for an extremist group to give themselves credibility [[9]] [[10]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:2:4A80:5878:155C:1CEE:AEA2 (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:32, 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 redirect to White stag. This is a weird one. It looks like the existing article is about a mythical creature for which we cannot establish WP:N or even WP:V, but the same name can also refer to something else, which is notable. So, redirecting to the notable thing. The article history will still be intact, so if somebody wants to mine that for mergeable material, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost deer[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Notability. Seems to be an urban legend among local hunters. Dlthewave (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, we're looking at two separate topics here:
- A specific mythical deer in California that is impervious to bullets and disappears without a trace. Current topic of the article, very minimal coverage.
- A term for (real) albino deer, which sometimes have legends of ghostly origin. Covered by the overwhelming majority of sources. White stag discusses the mythology.
We could probably write more about albino deer mythology, but "ghost deer" seems to be more of a popular catchall term and not an appropriate name for the topic. Dlthewave (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, more research needs to be done. The term 'ghost deer' refers to more than one thing. But, deleting the article doesn't

address that issue, it just avoids it. Ross-c (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the coverage mentioned is about two different subjects, further discussion should focus on which subject this article should cover and which is actually notable. If the specific Californian dear is not, this might be a valid redirect to white stag per WP:ATD-R
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:22, 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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous assessment[edit]

Continuous assessment (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)

Totally unreferenced article. Tagged for WP:V (August 2016). Appears to be a made-up concept. No sources support "Continuous assessment" that is an education policy in any nation as far as I am able to discern. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, is not a place for expressing personal views or original ideas WP:Notforum and WP:Nottextbook. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has existed since 2011. We don't delete the entire history just to erase some recent version. Andrew D. (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We" delete the entire history if the article gets deleted - that's the way it goes on Wikipedia---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew - I am not interested in your personal attacks ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a personal attack, just an opinion on the nomination. There's a difference. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just an opinion on the nomination - there are also personal attacks which are also snarky comments. They are unnecessary. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also needs to be rewritten - I think it needs to be rewritten from scratch. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, incorrect was what it was for Scholar. The term has to be specified for "education", "teaching", "learning" and so on [12], otherwise the search favors "continuous assessment" in the field of medicine for monitoring patients. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:01, 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. There are significant concerns that the article contains large amounts of trivia, supported only by routine, short-term, and very local news coverage and university newspapers. In this discussion there are calls for deletion, merging, redirecting, and substantial rewriting. All of the participants have provided well reasoned rationales for their opinions, but with opinions so spread out I cannot see a consensus for outright deletion. The discussion of whether to merge, and if so, what to merge, with the university article, is best left to editors' discretion. Note that unless further work is made to address the concerns made here it is likely that the article will be renominated for deletion at some point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions of the University of Santo Tomas[edit]

Traditions of the University of Santo Tomas (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 redirected this article because I could not identify sources which were not either primary or non-regional according to WP:N/WP:NORG. My redirect was contested. I continue to hold the belief that an examination of the sources will show that the sources are indeed low quality, so I am submitting this article to AFD. Izno (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My partner's nephew attended this university, which has a good reputation, but I don't know where to begin editing, so I alerted the relevant WikiProject to work on it. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
University of Alabama traditions - with 15 sources
Auburn University traditions - with 35 sources, it practically lists all the lyrics of their cheers and battle songs
Carnegie Mellon University traditions - 18 sources
Columbia University traditions - with 7 sources
Louisiana State University traditions - with 31 sources
Rutgers University traditions and customs - with 30 sources
Traditions of Texas A&M University - with 112 sources
There are just some university articles focusing on their university traditions. They are allowed to exist. They are allowed to stay even with minimal sources. This article has 62 sources and is better cited than these aforementioned articles. Pampi1010 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger question for me is, even granting that we look at this in the context of Philippine society and culture (that is, disregarding the US-centric articles you cited), are these UST traditions notable enough for Filipinos that they merit their own article? Compared to, say, UP's Oblation Run or the Ateneo–La Salle rivalry. Are many (if not all) of these already well-known to most Filipino readers inside and outside Metro Manila? --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:00, 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. MBisanz talk 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros/Publication list[edit]

Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros/Publication list (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)

Es una subpágina, no enciclopédica, de un artículo Jcfidy (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPPC como parte de su actividad publica trabajos académicos y de historia del arte en múltiples idiomas que serán citas para apoyar contenido que afecte a Wikipedias de inglés, español, portugués y otros idiomas. Esta subpágina es un reflejo de ese trabajo porque es únicamente multilingüe. Para que los editores maximicen el uso de la página CPPC principal y la subpágina con las citas, ambas páginas deben personalizarse para cada idioma: las plantillas de citas reflejan las etiquetas de idioma de forma diferente.
Una vez más abogo con usted para considerar cuán negativo será el impacto de la eliminación, especialmente para los usuarios de habla española.
Puedo y estoy dispuesto a mejorar la página principal y la subpágina para ilustrar esto mejor. Pero eliminar la subpágina es muy dañina. Le ruego que reconsidere esta postura. Al tener una interpretación estrecha aquí, usted como un editor están teniendo un impacto muy negativo en algo que está muy destinado a ser positivo y constructivo. BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Just like this discussion spans multiple languages: I believe that you have misunderstood the situation here. Deleting this sub-page is against WP:BOLD and will have a negative impact on Spanish and Portuguese language Wikipedia.
CPPC as part of its activity publishes academic and art history works in multiple languages that will be citations to support content that impacts English, Spanish, Portuguese as well as other language Wikipedias. This sub-page is reflective of that work because it is uniquely multi-lingual. For editors to maximize usage of both the main CPPC page and the subpage with the citations both pages need to be customized for each language: citation templates reflect language tags differently.
I again plead with you to consider how negative the impact of the deletion will be, especially for Spanish speaking users.
I can and am willing to improve both the main page and the sub-page to illustrate this better. But to delete the sub-page is so very harmful. I beg you to reconsider this stance. By having a narrow interpretation here, you as one editor are having very negative impact on something that is very much intended to be positive and constructive. BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esto no se trata de una tienda de enlaces, ya que he dicho que esta página no está completa. El plan era mejorar su contenido. La página es increíblemente relevante. Pero no parece que usted está interesado en tener una conversación aquí sobre eso.
La CPPC tiene su sede en los Estados Unidos, pero es internacional y muy panregional en los países de habla hispana que utilizan esta Wikipedia. Su misión es la publicación de obras que necesitan estar disponibles en múltiples idiomas. Cada subpágina debe ser completamente utilizable en cada idioma.
El impacto de suprimir esta subpágina significará que CPPC tendrá que duplicar GLAM sus páginas de iniciativa inglesa en Wikipedias en inglés, español y portugués. La página GLAM actual está aquí: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros
Esta es una situación en la que se debe permitir una excepción en el espíritu de WP: BOLD - y también en apoyo de una iniciativa GLAM que planea incluir una gran donación de imágenes.
Al eliminar esta subpágina, está afectando negativamente la cobertura de la Wikipedia española del arte moderno latinoamericano. Esto está perjudicando significativamente a su propia Wikipedia.
De sus acciones aquí también están impactando negativamente Wikipedia Inglés, como un compañero de redacción ha puesto en cola la sub-página de Inglés para la eliminación aquí, tan bien hecho! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list
El resultado final de no flexibilidad aquí es increíblemente negativo para los hispanohablantes y no reflejará la página CPPC adecuadamente. Esta eliminación creará 3 veces el trabajo y no reflejará la entrada correctamente. No creo que sea correcto para usted como un editor tener tal impacto, para interponerse en el camino de una iniciativa de GLAM que tendría un resultado tan positivo en su enciclopedia. Pero esta es su elección.
Yo me opongo. -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This is not a link store, as I said this page is not complete. The plan was to improve its content. The page is incredibly relevant. But it does not look like you're interested in having a conversation here about that.
The CPPC is based in the United States, but is international and very panregional in the Spanish-speaking countries that use this Wikipedia. Its mission is to publish works that need to be available in multiple languages. Each subpage must be fully usable in each language.
The impact of deleting this subpage will mean that CPPC will have to duplicate its GLAM pages of English initiative in Wikipedias in English, Spanish and Portuguese. The current GLAM page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros
This is a situation where an exception should be allowed in the spirit of WP: BOLD - and also in support of a GLAM initiative that plans to include a large donation of images.
By deleting this subpage, it is negatively affecting the Spanish Wikipedia's coverage of modern Latin American art. This is significantly harming your own Wikipedia.
Of their actions here are also negatively impacting Wikipedia English, as a copywriting partner has put the English sub-page for deletion here, so well done! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list
The final result of non-flexibility here is incredibly negative for Spanish speakers and will not reflect the CPPC page properly. This deletion will create 3 times the job and will not reflect the input correctly. I do not think it is right for you as an editor to have such an impact, to get in the way of a GLAM initiative that would have such a positive result in your encyclopedia. But this is your choice.
I oppose.
Esto no se trata de una tienda de enlaces, ya que he dicho que esta página no está completa. El plan era mejorar su contenido. La página es increíblemente relevante. Pero no parece que usted está interesado en tener una conversación aquí sobre eso.
La CPPC tiene su sede en los Estados Unidos, pero es internacional y muy panregional en los países de habla hispana que utilizan esta Wikipedia. Su misión es la publicación de obras que necesitan estar disponibles en múltiples idiomas. Cada subpágina debe ser completamente utilizable en cada idioma.
El impacto de suprimir esta subpágina significará que CPPC tendrá que duplicar GLAM sus páginas de iniciativa inglesa en Wikipedias en inglés, español y portugués. La página GLAM actual está aquí: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros
Esta es una situación en la que se debe permitir una excepción en el espíritu de WP: BOLD - y también en apoyo de una iniciativa GLAM que planea incluir una gran donación de imágenes.
Al eliminar esta subpágina, está afectando negativamente la cobertura de la Wikipedia española del arte moderno latinoamericano. Esto está perjudicando significativamente a su propia Wikipedia.
De sus acciones aquí también están impactando negativamente Wikipedia Inglés, como un compañero de redacción ha puesto en cola la sub-página de Inglés para la eliminación aquí, tan bien hecho! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list
El resultado final de no flexibilidad aquí es increíblemente negativo para los hispanohablantes y no reflejará la página CPPC adecuadamente. Esta eliminación creará 3 veces el trabajo y no reflejará la entrada correctamente. No creo que sea correcto para usted como un editor tener tal impacto, para interponerse en el camino de una iniciativa de GLAM que tendría un resultado tan positivo en su enciclopedia. Pero esta es su elección.
Yo me opongo. -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otra vez me opongo a usted como un editor que tiene un impacto negativo sobre algo que es tan beneficioso para las enciclopedias de múltiples lenguas. ¿Qué puedo añadir para explicar más el beneficio positivo y constructivo de ser WP: BOLD. ¿Tengo que añadir esta lista de publicaciones a la página principal? BrillLyle (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El impacto de su acción requerirá una gran duplicación de esfuerzos por parte del proyecto, lo cual no refleja el impacto internacional y pan-regional de la organización y sus publicaciones. BrillLyle (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot follow the Spanish parts and wonder why they are there at all it being about the English Wikipedia. Having said that, a little leeway would help. This is a project that will develop in a major way the documentation and therefore the articles about South American art and artists. It is frightfully underdeveloped. In my opinion this proposal for deletion needs to be speedily removed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google traslate For my part I have no problem in making it a separate list, as an attachment. --Jcfidy (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think I understand the concern about sub-page versus list. I will work on the list page to develop it more. Is that acceptable? Would it be okay to then use "see also" to point to list from CPPC page? / Bueno. Creo que entiendo la preocupación por sub-página versus lista. Trabajaré en la página de la lista para desarrollarla más. ¿Es eso aceptable? ¿Estaría OK usar entonces "ver también" para apuntar a la lista de la página CPPC? -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Jcfidy (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Basically just a bi-lingual conversation between the same 2 editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 14:54, 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. A discussion whether such articles should exist in general might be more useful going forward than separate AFDs. SoWhy 07:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atalanta B.C. in European football[edit]

Atalanta B.C. in European football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. One of a series of articles along these same lines, all very poorly sourced. None of which even suggest the notability of these particular games as a list. Seems to be the very essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As per WP:MULTIAFD, nominated one first to see consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Cesena in European football. Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerlaziale: User who undid Onel's redirect edit. But why must you be so quick to not discuss on the talk page for a moment first when I took the liberty to try and do beforehand on the talk page? Besides as the last nomination for deletion at A.C. Cesena, the outcome was redirect, not delete, so it would've been prudent to make that clear on the talk page to Omerlaziale first. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first, nice canvassing. second, why didn't that user begin a conversation with me? They simply reverted without explanation. As per WP:NLIST, this list article is not notable. And thanks for the civility. Onel5969 TT me 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is the first time I have faced with a deletion of a page created by myself. That's why I am not really familiar with the procedures on this. Anyway, I have included the relevant sources to the page in question. I have tried to improve the page. Before creating it, I have looked at several similar pages such as Coventry City, Derby Country etc. I saw that the history or the number of matches did not matter in those cases. I know Atalanta does not have a big European competition history. However, they will be playing in Europe after a long time and I though it would be beneficial for the fans who wonder their history to list their matches and statistics in a different page and in a proper format. If there is anything more I need to do to save the page, please tell. Thank you. User:Omerlaziale 19:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In complete agreement with Omerlaziale. The amount of games shouldn't matter; there are sources. Especially with Atalanta's European campaign continuing this year. Who's to say it's not notable? By the way Onel, two wrongs don't make a right, Omerlaziale obviously didn't know your history and didn't think you were going to go straight to deletion. You should've discussed on the article talk page discussion I created first. If you didn't want to discuss there, we'll discuss here, that's why I pinged him. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is canvassing, regardless of the excuse. And incivility is still a lack of civility. And when discussing keeping or deleting, please state policies to back up your position, not simply WP:ILIKEIT arguments.Onel5969 TT me 02:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discuss with you before reverting was a mistake, Onel. You are right on that but please keep in mind that this is the first time I have faced with such a problem. I simply edit pages, update statistics as a hobby. I do not have too much knowledge on other things. I already wrote why I think it could be benefical to have an European football page for Atalanta. I also added the necessary sources. I have looked at different examples from diffetent leagues, and it seems okay to me. By the way, thank you Vaselineeeeeeee for your understanding and support on this. I appreciate that. User:Omerlaziale 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Omerlaziale... my comment was in response to the uncivil commentary by the other editor. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 01:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Onel, if you think my comments were uncivil, that's saddening. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that Italia2006 was canvassed to this discussion with this edit. Onel5969 TT me 15:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dude get off your high horse. Did I ask him to say keep? No. He would've seen it anyway. By the way Appropriate notification: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article - Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Italia2006 the latter point, Omerlaziale the former. Their votes are not to be discredited. I'm also curious to see @Struway2: and @Govvy: who said DELETE at Cesena's deletion nom. If you recall PeeJay and GiantSnowman also said Delete/Merge on the last one, but both Keep here. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Crowsus: I've created U.C. Sampdoria in European football and merged A.C. ChievoVerona in European football and A.S. Livorno Calcio in European football into their respective main club articles. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:49, 27 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. Per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 11:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IslamicTorrents[edit]

IslamicTorrents (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)

Useful and used, but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess the sources added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:34, 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. If this were a WP:N question, I'd probably relist this, but it looks like we don't even have WP:V, and that's a much stricter requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard High School Igorora[edit]

Standard High School Igorora (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)

Deprodded by article's creator without rationale or improvement. While high schools are usually considered notable, I can't find a single reliable source to show this actually exists. Onel5969 TT me 12:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Places-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:28, 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.  Sandstein  07:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey in Azerbaijan[edit]

Ice hockey in Azerbaijan (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:NHOCKEY. There is no ice hockey in Azerbaijan, only field hockey is played there. No evidence of having ice hockey in Azerbaijan exists. Unreferenced junk article created by an editor. Azerbaijan was a member of the IIHF, but due to lack of ice hockey program, rinks, players and competing in any IIHF tournaments. AaronWikia (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few things to consider; in 1992 Azerbaijan became an IIHF member and has remained so, while in 1992, "Kuwait was expelled, due to lack of hockey activity." So if there is no "hockey activity" why haven't they been expelled? Additionally they were invited to participate in qualifying back in 1993 but declined, which suggests that at least there was hockey. According to Eurohockey.com there is an ice rink in Baku. Leaning towards delete but I don't know what the rationale is for other similar articles.18abruce (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ice Hockey Federation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The latter could use more content. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 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 redirect to Palmdale School District. Next time, just do it yourself. SoWhy 07:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Willow Intermediate School[edit]

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

nn with half of an intersection and no other information-delete or redirect to appropriate school district Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:31, 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. If anyone does further research on this and does discover sources, feel free to message me and we can look into restoring the page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domnia The Dobrogean[edit]

Domnia The Dobrogean (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 does not appear to have been mentioned in any reliable sources whatsoever. The only reference in the article is to a WP:USERGENERATED wiki. None of the ancient sources cited in Tigidius Perennis mention the name of his wife, or where she was from. In fact, subject appears to have been entirely made up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed. The only source is rodovid, which "is open to everyone" and where "visitors are welcome to contribute information and publish it ... at any time". So much for reliability. Like the nominator I could find no trace of the lady in textual or epigraphic sources. Moreover Domnia (cf. domina) is hardly a Germanic name and the etymology of "Dobruja" is Slavic. Mildly amusing. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tacitus mentions the Langobardi as part of the Marbod bund: "Igitur non modo Cherusci sociique eorum, vetus Arminii miles, sumpsere bellum, sed e regno etiam Marobodui Suebae gentes, Semnones ac Langobardi, defecere ad eum." 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct - they are known from approx. the 1st century - from north-western Germany. Still no sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find corroboration for this story anywhere. The main source for Tigidius Perennis seems to be Herodian:[13] - and he doesn't mention an execution of a wife - just Perennis and a single unnamed son. This article is asserting the execution of Perennis + wife + 3 childredn.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant source is Dio Cassius, which tells of the killing of Perennis, his wife, and his two sons here (English translation). But it doesn't name Perennis' wife or children, and contradicts our article on the number of children... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that if you combine Herodian (who tells of killing of his son in a separate incident) and Dio Cassius - you could (SYNTH) get 1+2+1 = 1+3. But still no Domnia (or son names).Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 21 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noe Baba (footballer)[edit]

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

Article previously deleted at AfD as the subject failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. There has been no change in the subjects notability, he still hasn't played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass GNG. Kosack (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Kosack (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 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 07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Mutation[edit]

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

The label has no independent coverage whatsoever, failing WP:GNG. Please do not mix up coverage with the band of the same name. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:59, 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 07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sehrish Mansoor[edit]

Sehrish Mansoor (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)

created by subject herself. i dont see her passing WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:06, 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. SoWhy 07:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deeksha[edit]

Deeksha (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 apparent evidence of notability. Lots of references, but either press releases or mentions such as "Analysing the paper, Dr. Milind, Vice-President, Deeksha Network said it was an easy paper...". Article created and almost entirely written by an editor who has edited solely on this article and on institutions with which Deeksha works (creating many articles on colleges of doubtful notability) and has not yet replied to an enquiry as to whether they have a COI. PamD 15:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Friends,
Kindly guide me in rewriting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeksha so that it can be live always.
Looking forward for your reply. Thanks a lot in advance
Regards
Wikipedian2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian2017 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:42, 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. No more delete !votes after cleanup, sufficient consensus that this is a notable organization. SoWhy 07:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propane Education and Research Council[edit]

Propane Education and Research Council (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 created by organization's employee is sourced to magazine with relationship to the Council and uncritical pro-industry outlets like "New marketing campaign designed to endear public to propane". WP:TNT and start over if a neutral editor is interested. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no evidence that it's covered in "various other sources", but even if that were granted here's what DGG has said about articles like this in the past: "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason." Unless you are willing to do the WP:TNT lifting yourself, this kind of !vote just enables crap articles that exist indefinitely. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to see any clear "promotionalism" in the article or anything about it that would require starting over. Which sentences are so promotional that they require the article to be deleted? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, without the fawning industry publications there isn't anything left. Repeating what I wrote on the article's talkpage: LP Gas Magazine has an editorial board including at least one member of Propane Education and Research Council [14], and the same person was formerly editor in chief of LP Gas. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it and the other checkoff programs are boondoggles. But is the Propane Council a notable boondoggle? You didn't address this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup. Propane was an early (earliest?) checkoff program outside the agricultural sector. The next one will be Cement and Masonry. Rhadow (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear you, but I'm not sure that the article advocates for PERC any longer. I admit, after working on the article, that I advocate for an exposition of the $750 million collected in checkoffs each year. I appreciate K.e.coffman's substitution of remarkable for notable. If we dump this article, then we need to go after its peers, the Mushroom Council, National Processed Raspberry Council, and all the others in the list in Commodity checkoff program. They are similarly unremarkable. The Supreme Court disagrees though, finding checkoffs important enough to hear cases on the subject. Rhadow (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Kiss[edit]

Natasha Kiss (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 pornbio as nominated only, first source is an interview and therefore primary not counting to notability, The second is now nonexistant but even if it was still there and a decent rs would not be enough alone. Spartaz Humbug! 06:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 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 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davi Shane[edit]

Davi Shane (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 and WP:BIO as an actor, singer, songwriter and model. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably created by the subject himself, User:Shanealvarado (Shane's full name: Davi Shane Everett Alvarado), an SPA who has one edit outside this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  06:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Pudahuel Airport[edit]

Santiago Pudahuel Airport (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)

Airport has only one source, is on a sloping hillside, and runway is far too short for landing. Page is linked by only List of airports in Chile Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 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 speedy delete as it's obviously made up by the creator. (A11) (non-admin closure) KGirl (Wanna chat?) 11:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptolution[edit]

Cryptolution (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:NEO. Most google results are on twitter or hacker websites. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:42, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Iceland by languages spoken[edit]

List of Presidents of Iceland by languages spoken (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 cannot figure out the encyclopedic value of this list. It seems little more than a curiosity, a random amalgamation of information available elsewhere. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is similar to the List of multilingual presidents of the United States. That article was listed for deletion in 2011 an the results were keep, see the discussion here -- Dammit_steve (talk) 12:37, 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. MBisanz talk 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C9 Entertainment[edit]

C9 Entertainment (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)

Possible WP:SOAP. Techyan（Talk） 05:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ As far as I can tell
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 07:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. W. Ulsterman[edit]

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

Self-published author. We never consider these notable without significant critical attention. Possible speedy delete G11 as promotionalism . He has not been highlighted in USA today--he has been included as one of the half dozen authors listed in a column about new Kindle releases. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self publishing author who has failed to gain critical notice in the press via reviews for his work or otherwise. Not a significant or remarkable person. Fails GNG, BIO, BLP. Might be WP:TOOSOON. Also, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion - reccomend G!! speedy delete. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:35, 21 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 07:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klase gonzales[edit]

Klase gonzales (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 all four points of WP:CREATIVE.

Also worth noting that notability is not inherited so just because he's worked with Sean Paul does not make him independently notable. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:04, 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 06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shubh Mukherjee[edit]

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

A non-notable actor. It is riddled with promotional material such as the uncited assertion that he has created "one of India's most-loved films". The article refers to Mukherjee by his first name, while this isn't a reason for deletion, it could indicate a conflict of interest but that is speculation. TL;DR: delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:PROMO. DrStrauss talk 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:04, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn - Sources have been added to the article which I'm more than happy with, Thanks Thistle202 & 94.119.64.17 for adding these to the article your help is very much appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Central Buses[edit]

Kelvin Central Buses (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 bus company, This sort of info ideally belongs in a book, Obviously it being a 1989-1998 company there's going to be nothing on Google News however there are a few books on Google Books however these seem to be all just one lined mentions, There may well be sources offline but that would be a wild guess, Fails NCORP and GNG, –Davey2010Talk 01:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • That book was created in 2016 so therefore it's likely the entire book was copied from here ... just reworded here & there. –Davey2010Talk 02:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but that book was not created from scratch and that is clearly obvious- Unless you can find sources for each and every sentence in that book other than here then I'm afraid the answer is directly above you. –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does need more referencing, but not reason enough to justify deletion. Have fished around for some bringing some up from external links, will wait on outcome of discussion before proceeding further. With 500 buses, certainly more notable than many of the bus companies with far smaller fleets that have articles.
Book mentioned above is a published work from a publishing house [19] independent of the author (David Devoy is not listed as an office bearer of Amberley Publishing Limited), so unlikely to be copied from an uncited Wikipedia article as insinuated. Devoy has written a number of books on other Scottish bus operators,[20] have the all been copied from Wikipedia? A big call. Having scanned through the online version of the book, is differs substantially to the article with a fair bit of information not in the article, so IMO we can rule this assertion out. Kelvin Central gains a few mentions in Commercial Motor articles, [21] other books on the Scottish Bus Group and contemporary Buses Magazine issues may also cover.
That many of the facts in both the book and the article is probably because they are the truth and have been drawn from the same sources, so stands to reason they are similar, would be more of a worry if they were telling a different story. If we were to assume that statements in published works that have already been stated in the equivalent Wikipedia article to be invalid, then we would be ruling out most published works from about 2005. Thistle202 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep it give it a shot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are great however the article needs to be fully sourced, A good 80% of what's in the article isn't in those books and I don't really want to delete most of the article, I would say it's valuable info that should be kept however paragraps etc do need sourcing (FWIW I'd love to ignore that but we can't unfortunately), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide said source?, As for the online comment I did state directly above Obviously it being a 1989-1998 company there's going to be nothing on Google News ...... –Davey2010Talk 17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been edited to what can be backed up by reliable sources. Thistle202 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:57, 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. The additional sources have convinced several participants that there is some merit to the subject's notability while one has suggested merging the content with the artist. Either way, there is no consensus here for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Native Art Department International[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:ARTIST Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get off Justlettersandnumbers? Your bias is clear for all the world to see on your talk page. Folks, she asked for additional references first, then in got pissy when I provided more than enough then reverted her moving the article to the draft space. Should this editor even be allowed on Wikipedia?--A21sauce (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relax... this is a process that is about the rules of inclusion for Wikipedia. It is not a personal attack on anyone.104.163.142.4 (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The articles present here show that NADI has crossed the GNG threshold. And the article has shaped up as a description of NADI in particular rather than Hupfield and Lujan. Hupfield still deserves a separate article and her notability is even clearer than NADI. Moreover, (from a slightly IAR perspective), the peculiar multiple life of NADI: an art production, a curation team, and an art blog makes it confusing to append NADI to Maria Hupfield. It's just better for the encyclopedia for it to be an independently searchable term rather than some hybrid collaboration/collaborator article. This may also be an area where Wikipedia guidelines are too comparatively restrictive in the visual arts: if a notable songwriter had a regular duo that had recorded three albums with critical reviews available about them, then we would absolutely keep such an article. So let's keep this one; I hope other editors will give a near-the-boundary case the benefit of the doubt for these reasons.--Carwil (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mduvekot. Although I nominated this for deletion, I'd have no objection to a redirect to that page as an alternative. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 21 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. If the site he founded is really more notable than he is, an article about the site can be created and he can be discussed there. But there is clear consensus that he is to be included in one form or another. SoWhy 06:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Sahr[edit]

Kenny Sahr (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 demonstration of notability. Chief Marketing Officer at Sodyo, a non-notable company. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:51, 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. No one besides the nominator argued for deletion and they didn't address the sources added later. SoWhy 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Transportation Center[edit]

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

A bus stop with some overhead cover isn't an encyclopedic subject. How is this notable or important? Anmccaff (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:50, 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 no consensus. One editor favors keeping this and Treasury Tower, one favors keeping this and merging Treasury Tower there, one editor favors merging this somewhere and keeping Treasury Tower and one favors outright deletion. I see no consensus here but remember that merges can always be discussed elsewhere. SoWhy 06:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District 8 Jakarta[edit]

District 8 Jakarta (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)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches did not turn up the type of information to show that it passes WP:GNG, all references are mere mentions. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the Treasury Tower clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT, the development doesn't appear to. Inclusion of the few salient points in District 8 in the article on the single notable structure within the complex would definitely not be out of line. Onel5969 TT me 12:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:50, 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 and redirect to 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games. No objections to creating a redirect after deletion were raised. SoWhy 06:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games[edit]

Bangladesh at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games (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 just says the nation competed at the games. There are no references. A redirect is not necessary as the main article does not discuss the country's participation and its unlikely people are looking for the country specifically. Most likely people will search for 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Malaysia at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pakistan at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:49, 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 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

France at the 2013 European Road Championships[edit]

France at the 2013 European Road Championships (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)

Nations at X sport event are reserved for multi-sports events. Plus the page is completely sourced by results pdfs. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:49, 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. Alex ShihTalk 03:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Aslam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Imran Aslam (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 and WP:JOURNALIST. Please don't cite sources like The News as they are related to the individual. Greenbörg (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Namechecks are not enough. Greenbörg (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:37, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Anido[edit]

Alfie Anido (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)

Procedural nomination. This is an unsourced article about an actor and model, which was recently blanked down to infobox only by an editor who's been around long enough to know better -- while there are certainly some content problems here that need to be addressed, the appropriate response if you want the article gone is to list it for a deletion process, not just to erase it. At any rate, this has been flagged for notability since 2016, and for lacking sources since 2008 -- but neither actors nor models get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if reliable sourcing isn't present to support them, and the unverified claims here that he was murdered by the government are pretty much the textbook example of why reliable sources are required. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but we are not a venue for propagating unconfirmed and unsourced conspiracy theories. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:36, 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 delete. SoWhy 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Agarwal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amit Agarwal (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 producer among supposedly other things. Reads like a grandiose resume. Probably a vanity page, created by an author who also created the page for the production house which was deleted as G11. Most of the material mentioned is unreferenced. Fails WP:N Jupitus Smart 09:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 18:55, 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) 06:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:33, 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. Award found. (non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 19:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Hoffman[edit]

Kayla Hoffman (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)

Competed at a high level, but I don't think it quite meets WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability and verifiability for 9 years, hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Changing to keep per Hmlarson; the Honda Award certainly satisfies NCOLLATH. Ravenswing 07:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - I appreciate an effort was made but the sourcing lacks the WP:DIVERSE coverage needed to keep this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Honda Award? Ehh, it is a notable award so I will change my !vote but significant independent coverage is still somewhat lacking.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:32, 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 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Software Magazine (China)[edit]

Free Software Magazine (China) (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. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:30, 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 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MCN Live[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. Nominating similarly titled page for deletion as well - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC):[reply]

MCNLive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 18:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:30, 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. SoWhy 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped Minds[edit]

Trapped Minds (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 references. Not notable as TV show. Google search reveals that it exists, but finds no independent references. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:29, 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. As pointed out by the delete !votes, we keep populated places per WP:GEOLAND if their existence is verifiable. This does not seem to be the case here. SoWhy 06:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tharakiya[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tharakiya (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)

Extremely little information can be found about this place. In my view, it's pretty far from meeting WP:GNG. Also, no arguments were brought up to keep this page in the previous AfD. It's almost identical to what it looked like back then. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least be redirected. There's not nearly enough info on it to warrant a standalone article. I started this AfD in case consensus is against me for some reason. This has nothing to do with my deletion record. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. Let me note that your reply suggests that the article should not be deleted. What specific alternative to deletion do you suggest? Redirect to what exactly? Can you put some coverage of this topic in whatever target article you prefer, with a Template:Anchor that a redirect could be targeted at?
In the absence of more specifics, I think bringing community attention to this AFD is not helpful at all, and it should be closed "Keep". --doncram 23:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete are kinda the same thing if you ask me. Either way there's no content left on the page. If we redirect then I guess we could redirect to the next highest subdivision. Maybe Garhwa district? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hindi spelling "ठरकिया" gets a a couple of hits, but nothing that would enhance notability. I am adding the Hindi spelling in case the article is kept. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:19, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America1000 02:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Ummah[edit]

My Ummah (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:NMUS. DrStrauss talk 20:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:27, 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 redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. SoWhy 06:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey's (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

Casey's (Portland, Oregon) (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 one source is specifically about it, and it is a blog post. The other two just discuss bars generally. I don't see a grounds for notability, other than being a gay bar in Portland. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this clearly lacks notability - it doesn't meet the general notability guidelines as there hasn't been significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. A single blog post about the bar is not enought to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of this subject. If someone can produce some, I have an open mind. It looks like typical coverage for a bar.--Truthtests (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are cheap, so as long as the search is plausible, I suggest we keep. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the odds are low that somebody would plan that exact title right from the start of typing. But if they were looking for an article about it, they would at the very least type "Casey's" and try to see if any of the search results corresponded to the one they were looking for or not — "Portland, Oregon" therefore being their cue. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the predominant thought right now is delete, relisting to see reaction to article creator's request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 01:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Onel5969.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:23, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Float[edit]

Capital Float (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)

Run-of-the-mill money-lending business. No independent in-depth coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9X Odia[edit]

9X Odia (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)

Fake TV station Xzinger (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple fake television stations created by User:Rajesultanpur and his various alts, User:Prashantpandeyking, User:Prashantpking, User:Khanbabaji.

9x Bangla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
India Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zee Premium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TV9 Hindi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zee Welle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Found more fakes created by User:Rajesultanpur.

&Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
&Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zee Bhojpuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 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 speedy keep. Subject clearly meets WP:NFOOTY as a senior international. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven Javier[edit]

Beethoven Javier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:27, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Georgia)[edit]

Disney XD (Georgia) (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)

Hoax. No references whatsoever about Disney publicly announcing the launch of this channel. Bankster (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I'm also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason[reply]

Disney Channel (Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Disney Junior (Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 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. by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (Georgia)[edit]

Disney Channel (Georgia) (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)

Hoax. No references whatsoever about Disney publicly announcing the launch of this channel. Bankster (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I'm also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason[reply]

Disney Junior (Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Disney XD (Georgia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amonetize[edit]

Amonetize (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)

Logged in to nominate for deletion; there are no significant sources that show this entity as notable. Nowhere near passing GNG. Searches for sources that could improve the article have come up empty, only passing mentions at best or PR-originating fluff pieces. Geolocalipuma (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:10, 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. No prejudice against another nomination but clearly at four relists this one is going nowhere. Perhaps a merge or a renaming discussion would be worth it as well given the concerns about the new name? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frisian Solar Challenge[edit]

Frisian Solar Challenge (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)

Hi all - the information on this page is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify. The current information all seems to be in regard to one iteration of the race, and does not reference specific dates. Upon trying to research the subject, a few websites offhandedly seemed to suggest that the race was renamed the Dutch Solar Challenge in 2016.[1] [2] Mavrab (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Dutch Solar Challenge powered by Honeywell Solar Modules". Honeywell Solar Modules.
  2. ^ Clean Mobility http://cleanmobility.info/wedstrijden/dong-energy-solar-challenge/. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to DONG Energy Solar Challenge. Dong Energy Solar Challenge would technically be even better but not consistent with our other article, DONG Energy. Hence my current preference for the name with the caps (we should solve the problems of one article at a time).

Please note that the name in the logo ("Dong Energy Sollarchallenge"), while it has Dong better written, also contains a grotesque Dutchism. Name in the text here (not in the logo) should be held as official and is used elsewhere.

Event also has a Dutch name, Friese zonnebootrace, a beautiful name without the sponsorship, however since there is a common English it should be preferred. Problem with referencing was that our name combines parts of different names and is as such OR.

Following the English or Dutch name, one will see that the subject is well covered in the Dutch press and solar energy media. When renaming please do not forget to create redirects at the other names I wikified in this response and to change the name on the template that is in the article. gidonb (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no new action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:07, 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.
More