The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout Pakistan (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 could not find any coverage of this show whatsoever, past or present. This is likely a WP:HOAX. Mar4d (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. No coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trap City (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. All news sources that mention this channel do not discuss it in-depth. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and suffers from a lack of sourcing. Most sources cited are attributed to either user-generated content or websites that do not meet Wikipedia's source criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails General NotabilityZazzysa (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom Italia Tower (Naples) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I think the article doesn't meet notability standards. Winuserunlimited (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep "It is currently the second tallest skyscraper in Italy". I'm going to begin calling out your noms as WP:BADFAITH at this point; improve them immediately or face a block. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, bad-faith nomination from a block-evading vandal who is now blocked. --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Builders (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)

Promotional uncited article. No clear demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- unsourced corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 31 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  09:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karnan (malayalam) (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 translation of a book for which we don't have an article on the book in its original language. No evidence found for the claimed award. Not notable enough. Edwardx (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the book listed in worldcat.com ISBN 9788171304868 and you can find the original's details (Mrityunjay) in the page sivaji savant Regarding the award there is no much details available on iternet .You can find it in the Kendra sahitya akademy's official website (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am sort of surprised that "Mrutyunjaya" doesnt have an article, in which case this should have been a redirect. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:54, 23 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  21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-platform IT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined prod. Not a common term; I believe it's being promoted by Compuware. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I actually use and done network setup for a hybrid cloud solution at work. And I cannot understand how "Through two-platform IT, savings are easily diverted as investments in value-driving innovation, rather than used for the higher incremental costs of an x86 environment, such as purchasing a new server rack to house a new set of applications." is any different from a standard IaaS solution, indeed I think this whole article fails WP:PROMO as it exists purely to promote the definition of "two-platform IT" a product of CompuWare. Nothing lost by deletion. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No sources in the article, not seeing any reliable sources when I did a quick Google search. Appears to be a fairly non-notable band. Andise1 (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this company is not notable at all for wikipedia and there aren't any valid references about it on google and I think you should put speedy deletion tag for that Mr.ref (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I can't find any reliable sources regarding this record label, or any signed artists that might suggest notability under N:MUSIC #5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Article created in 2005 by Warpozio, who is still active on Wikipedia. Label specialises in releasing exclusive material in digital format only, mostly the "Epitonic Saki Sessions" in which bands are recorded live in the Saki record store which occupies the same building as the record label, and then released for free download or streaming from the Epitonic website [1]. Although many notable artists have recorded for the Saki Sessions (Superchunk, Angel Olsen, Foxygen, the Handsome Family and many more), the exclusive and free nature of these releases means that none of them are notable. I can only find four full releases on the label, the most notable of which is an EP by Girls Against Boys. Richard3120 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Epitonic, which has had some coverage as a website, but I agree with the above that the label does not appear notable enough on its own to warrant a standalone article.  gongshow  talk  02:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the article literally consists of one sentence; A7 material. No need for a redirect as it's unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis (sigil) (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 sources in the article are all unreliable. Blogs, Youtube, and other useless sources etc. I'v searched for academic sources via Google Books and the web in general, but nothing reliable so far has appeared; Just more blogs and artwork. I can only assume this was just a trend or probably from some comic book or anime. Whatever it is, the article fails WP:N JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree: fails WP:N and WP:GNG; concur with @JudeccaXIII regarding lack of reliable sourcing; apparently promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 22:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A quick search throws up nothing, well beyond some very iffy stuff on some very iffy sites. Nope looks made up to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any indication of real notability. It seems to be almost entirely promotional in nature, and the dkmu.org (the DKMU being the group that supposedly invented this thing) forum is either infected with some really incompetent malware or had its security designed by a moron. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only somewhat notable in a specific subculture. It may be useful to know that duplicating the symbol and having it seen by as much people as possible is believed to increase its power, meaning that this article may also be a type of soapboxing. —PaleoNeonate – 16:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as articles on such things don't have to be from the Middle Ages. Possibly notable for its widespread usage, and from reading about this it seems the name of the page should be 'The Linking Sigil', which I've created as a redirect (along with 'Linking sigil'). Maybe this deletion request should be posted on more project pages, or at least some of the editors who may have an interest in such things can be notified. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but they still have to be notable(that is to say verifiabley notable).Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 21:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 21:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at WP:FTN. —PaleoNeonate – 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hoyt (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)

Biography, flagged as unsourced since 2009, of a radio and television personality, who has potentially valid claims of notability for some of his television work -- but nothing that would hand him an automatic presumption of notability just because he existed, if sourcing isn't there to get him past WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ive added references to article and by this wayi think its completely notable fore Wikipedia Mr.ref (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You've added a member profile on the self-published website of an organization he was directly involved with, a piece on the website of his own church in which he was the bylined author and not the subject, and his IMDb profile — which are all primary sources that cannot assist notability. To establish notability, sources have to represent reliable source coverage about him in media independent of him, such as newspapers, magazines or books — it's not enough to just use his own self-created web presence as verification that he existed. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; a run-of-the-mill radio personality. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The recent changes to the article do not convince me. No presumptuous claims for notability and WP:GNG is obviously not being met.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see any reason to re-list this a third time right now. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Holloway (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 radio personality, whose potential claims of notability aren't properly sourced. Of the 11 sources here, seven of them are primary sources (her own staff profiles on the websites of her own employers, participation in an event sourced to that event's own self-published press releases, etc.) -- and of the four that are reliable sources, two are just glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her, and one of the two remaining sources that are substantive enough to count toward WP:GNG is a deadlink whose content is unretrievable. So there's only one source here at all that's reliable and substantive and verifiable -- but one source isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - subject has been a DJ in several markets, and the info related to charity work and awards makes me think she meets WP:GNG (although not by a lot). PKT(alk) 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a DJ in several markets and/or doing charity work aren't notability claims for a radio personality — most DJs in commercial radio move around to different markets over the course of their careers, and most DJs in commercial radio do work for local charities in their spare time. And at any rate, GNG is a measure of the quality of sourcing that's present in the article, not just of anything that the article says — and the sourcing present here isn't adequate at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:NOQUORUM. Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long Days Ride 'Till Tomorrow (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)

Bootleg (Eric's Trip album) (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)

Followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live in Concert November 4th, 2001. While there once was a time when albums and EPs didn't need to show or source any notability claim besides "was released by a notable band", that's no longer the standard that applies today -- they now need to be reliably sourced as passing WP:NALBUMS for something more than just existing. While the band's three studio albums are repairable, these two are rarities compilations that were released after they got dropped from Sub Pop and broke up -- so there's no real notability claim, and no genuinely strong reliable sourcing, available for either of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deerfield, Garrett County, Maryland (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 small housing development, not an actual town. Per WP:GEOLAND, notability of these locations is considered on a case-by-case basis. The article cites no third-party sources, has no citations, and gives no clear indication that it is notable. Bitmapped (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems not to be encyclopedically notable. --doncram 17:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Small private development with no indication of notability. MB 03:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Learning by Observing and Pitching In (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 concept w/o significant independent coverage. I removed the most recent ProD as prior ProD had been removed, making it ineligible. So here we are. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per above, no examples of it's widespread use. — IVORK _Discuss 23:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searches of the concept do not turn up much beyond the articles coining the concept itself. The LOPI concept does not appear to be "worthy of note" per the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beat of Indian Youth (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)

Unable to see how this can pass WP:NALBUM. Edwardx (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP : Notable album having song written by former Indian President A P J Abdul Kalam . Enough and more reliable sources. The nominator is continuouly nominating articles without even reading the references or checking whether news articles are reliable or not BetterSmile:D (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Album fails WP:NALBUM and possible WP:GNG. Note that while a former Indian president did write the lyics for some songs notability is not inherited.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails WP:NALBUM. Also manages to be almost entirely promotional despite being a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen Jacobs (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)

Insufficient sources to establish notability for this young child actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggessting redirection to List_of_Hawaii_Five-0_(2010_TV_series)_characters#Will_Grover TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Child (Zen practitioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear notable. Either associated sources or minor mentions/unreliable sources come up with google search. And nothing in this article indicates notable accomplishments, other than being a zen practitioner. ‡ ᕮl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Several searches do not turn up independent, third party sources required for inclusion in Wikipedia by the general notability guideline. Malinaccier (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence in independent, third-party sources of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Mirza (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 under WP:TOOSOON SahabAliwadia 10:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:ACTORS. --Saqib (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: And also it is written like an advertisement. Also agree with your point. SahabAliwadia 15:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I am applying proposed deletion and I am sure you will not have any problem. SahabAliwadia 17:09, 18 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't meet our WP:TVSERIES notability guidelines. SahabAliwadia 11:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody has put forward a rationale for keeping the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Red Eyes (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No claim of notability, in fact it hasn't come out yet. Google only comes up with connected sources, and what may be a trailer on the Travel channel? But that doesn't create notability. Sorry ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:V and WP:NFF. Recreate if/when it's released, or it meets WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Very low activity despite several relists. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future Legend Records (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)

not notable independent label E-Kartoffel (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the biggest success of this label seems to be the assignment from "Dr. Martens" for the CD . Ca. 60-80% of the music of this label is by Russell Brennan himself, the label owner. Eleanor Rigby was his wife. The article is obviously written by Brennan or someone very close to him. The label's success is exaggerated (mildly expressed). See also the article about the (for wikipedia actually unnotable) Future-Legend-artist Misty Woods. E-Kartoffel (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a record label with no indications of notability or significance. Lack of sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Ellen Randolph (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)

Animator and book self-publisher. Neither she nor her company "Pirate Shades Productions" has any news coverage at all. None of her videos on YouTube have more than a few hundred views. This article also promotes a charity foundation in her name; it has 24 followers on Twitter and no news presence either. Contested PROD by the article creator with comment "This page was created with to almost the same words as a vetified actor. So what is the deletion issue?". Blythwood (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Blythwood (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete., Nom's assessment is about right. Agricola44 (talk) 22:39, 30 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) Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS M100 (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)

Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Sourced only to a corporate press release, dated today. Possibly a G11 candidate. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Product has significant news coverage outside of wikipedia, warranting its inclusion. Article needs minor improvement and tagging, not deletion. PureRED | talk to me | 13:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article needs to be expanded, but really is no different than other Wikipedia articles on Canon's camera technology, and may be of historic value when this camera has come and gone. Ryger3351 | talk to me | 09:05, 31 August 2017 (PST)
• Keep: I think it is a useful article for interested people, what kind of features a camera have. I think it should be seen in context with other vendor cameras, like Sony or Fuji and others. You can find also article about their cameras, some very short (Fujifilm X-A1), some more much advanced. I agree, there is place for improvement, but currently I have no better sources. --GodeNehler (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: To my knowledge, it is widely accepted on the WP to include articles on individual camera models, the EOS M100 is by far not the first one. Having this articles makes sense and does not make the WP a "product catalog". (In addition, to delete this article would be a precedent, also the other articles would have to be deleted.) ʘχ (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olayemi Esan (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 blogger/media consultant lacking non-trivial, independent sources. No independent support for the minor awards. A good number of the "references" are from subject's blog. reddogsix (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Note-the editor that created this article continues to add unrelated "references." reddogsix (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete excellent nomination, per that, non-notable nearly won an award, but based solely on trivia. — fortunavelut luna 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The organisers of the said Awards didnt make use of the internet to document their events, thus, we find it hard to use a Source for the Award. I have uploaded an evidence pictures showing the Article is real, she received the two Award.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pye Olayemi Esan (talk • contribs) — Pye Olayemi Esan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing of note to meet WP:ANYBIO. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not sufficiently notable, and lacking any RS sources to show notability. This does not mean the person can not become notable, only that the BLP does not meet Wikipedia guidelines at this point. Collect (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The additional references suggest it is no longer WP:TOOSOON to have an article. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Glass (Rachel Platten 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)

Permastub article with little indication of notability one week after release of single, a cursory search for articles turns up little in depth review. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rachel Platten. How can it be a permastub if it was just released as the first single from an upcoming album? Sources may come but in the meantime WP:CHEAP. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. While it is probably WP:TOOSOON for an article on the song, a redirect to the artist seems appropriate to me until the song is either notable in its own right or fades into obscurity. Cthomas3 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:TOOSOON. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – added some content and a few references which discuss the song in some detail. It ranked on US Adult Top 40. – Einstein2 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:NSONG per a review of sources added to the article when it was significantly expanded on 5 September 2017 (UTC) by Einstein2. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947^{(c) (m)} 18:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Collenette (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, unelected politician - WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and MOS:CA#Politics. Madg2011 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While she certainly would not meet the WP:NPOL guideline, her selection to the Order of Ontario is pretty persuasive evidence of her notability. PKT(alk) 19:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article definitely needs a major overhaul, I won't argue with that — as written, it puts far too much weight on her non-winning candidacy for Parliament, and not enough on her actual basis for notability, which is her time as a Liberal campaign strategist and staffer in the PMO in the Jean Chrétien era. A ProQuest search reveals quite a bit of coverage of her in those roles, as well, so the sourcing can be repaired to put the notability where it belongs. And yeah, the Order of Ontario don't hurt. Bearcat (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I trust Bearcat that based on ProQuest she would meet the GNG as a political strategist. Regardless of that, she meets WP:ANYBIO by having the Order of Ontario. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced meaningless nanostub, untouched since 2009. Topic doesn't seem to exist given all the weird wording. Deprodded for no valid reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added a source to a book chapter about the subject and deprodded this for a perfectly valid reason. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's better than nothing and (now) offers at least a coherent overview. It has a ref. It's tagged as a stub. An essay-like tag could maybe added if people choose, too. We're going to want a Theatre in Foo main article for every country that has theatre -- which is to say every country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shawn in Montreal: So "this barely even exists, we don't know if we can even define it" is a coherent overview? How about proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does exist so you don't have to resort to weasel wording? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The source that I added proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it exists. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. This idea that Zambia can't possibly have theatre -- because the poor Zambians haven't figured it out something so complex, or whatever -- doesn't wear well. It's a nation of 16+ million people. But keep it up TPH your flailings at Afd are always good. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the merits, per the above. At most, you might have an argument for merging to Zambia#culture or some such. But the implication that the subject doesn't exist is, as noted above, a troubling one. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: (Shawn in Montreal Country articles seem to use "Theatre of..." more than "Theatre in..."). For Zambia, there's clearly significant coverage in RS (Cambridge guides to Theatre and African and Caribbean theatre, World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Africa, A History of Theatre in Africa, African Popular Theatre: From Pre-colonial Times to the Present Day, etc). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hydronium Hydroxide: And of course, source dumping in an AFD means they will automatically be added to the article themselves, right? That must be why the article is still fucking untouched since goddamn 2009. If this really were a notable topic, then the article wouldn't be a meaningless microstub stinking up the wikipedia since goddamn fucking forever. But yeah, let's just let it sit and rot forever because there's no deadline right? I think I'll write an article on my own ass, because it exists and therefore must be notable. Who cares if the article is still 5 words long 10 years from now? Effort? What the fuck is that?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't you fucking notice that this fucking article had a fucking reference to a fucking 11-page fucking chapter about the fucking subject in a fucking book published by a fucking reliable fucking publisher before you fucking started this fucking discussion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• TPH - you're better than this. Cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ultraexactzz: So are you going to add the sources, or are you also hoping they'll just magically add themselves and make this an FA overnight? If you can be bothered to scream that it's notable, you can be bothered to throw the goddamn sources in there yourself. Otherwise, this article is just gonna sit and continue to rot because everyone else is just going to say it's somebody else's problem. I thought this was a project where people worked together, not a place where we just sit round and pass the buck all day long. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For some reason pots and kettles come to mind when I read that comment. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @TenPoundHammer: Your nomination was that the article was unsourced (and had been for a long time), and that the subject did not exist. The first point has been addressed - there's a source now. The second point is laughable bordering on offensive. It's thin, yes - which is why I suggested that a merge might be better. There are few editors on this project who know more about our deletion processes than you do - for fuck's sake, see also WP:HAMMER. And that's really my point - you're getting really really worked up over this article (and other recent AFDs, as noted at WT:AFD), and quite frankly I think your conduct is becoming problematic. But for your name at the top here, I wouldn't expect this sort of nomination from you, nor would I have expected your reactions here and elsewhere recently. I'm suggesting nothing more than that y'all need to take a deep breath and cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would note that there was a source referenced in the article before this discussion was started - I added it when I contested the WP:PROD deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ultraexactzz: So are you going to expand the article or what? It's absolutely annoying that this nanostub has existed forever without anyone touching it, and everyone is screaming "keep, it's notable" but not putting in the effort to fix it. Don't bother defending it if you can't be bothered to also fix it. This thing happens all the goddamn time, where everyone clamors for notability, but nobody can be bothered to fix it up. Why is that so hard? Are you going to fix it, or are you just going to let it fester too? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are millions of articles that need improvement. Ultraexactzz, like any other editor, is a volunteer who chooses where to work on Wikipedia, which may well not be on the specific article that you choose to focus on. The only way for you to ensure that this specific article is worked on is for you to do it yourself, per WP:SEP, which you cite yourself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion guidelines, "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator".  A deletion nomination does not create editors with spare time to work on the nominated article.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Chow (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)

Being the first from group X to do Y isn't something that is inherently notable, and even if that event has significant coverage, it is WP:BLP1E. Other sources are either routine coverage of crimes he investigated (not coverage of him in detail) or less than reliably sourced. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Police department executives, even of a large force like LA's, are not inherently notable. I'm not persuaded by the claim that he's the highest-ranking Chinese-American in the history of the force. Every police department will have a highest-ranking Foo-American, for various values of Foo. Multiply the number of large police departments by the number of possible values of Foo, and we'd be overrun with articles with no other claim to notability than the ethnicity of the person occupying the position. Certainly, if Chow were independently notable, his being the highest-ranking Chinese-American ought to be included; but it's not itself enough for notability. TJRC (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the merits. Oddly, WP:USUAL applies, however - if, for example, Cdr. Chow becomes Chief of Police or something, then you might have a case for an article. At this point, given the coverage in evidence, BLP1E seems to control. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, where most of the officers who served as Chief are bluelinks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need significant, sustained coverage which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Routine coverage for a political candidate. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG; apart from the political candidacy, professional credentials are within normal limits for any litigation partner of a certain age in a large national law firm in the U.S. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J947^{(c) (m)} 05:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Thane Municipal Corporation is the governing body for Thane (population just under 2 mil people), and deputy mayor appears to be an elected position. For comparison, the city of Chicago is over 2 mil ppl, and most of its aldermen have articles: Chicago_City_Council#Chicago_aldermen. To prevent systemic bias, I'm voting keep. Given the size of the population, the subject also probably meets WP:NPOL. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman has convinced me I was wrong - nomination withdrawn. Boleyn (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rangrez Mustaquim Akhtar (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:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and references provided look unconvincing. The article is promotional in tone and such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has Times obit and Who's Who entry - usually enough for WP:GNG. Threehundredeight (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the Times obit., was it paid for or just coverage for free?There are many Who's Who guides, I wouldn't say inclusion in one I've never heard of would be automatic inclusion, do you have evidence of extensive coverage, Threehundredeight? Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to Times database at the moment. The Who's Who guide is the one cited in the article - most editors who know anything about UK biographies will be very familiar with that source. Threehundredeight (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A Google Books search with narrowly drawn date parameters yields a reasonable number of book hits, such as this 1914 mention which describes Montgomery as "the author of the well-known work, “Montgomery's Licensing Practice”". bd2412 T 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added a bit of material. This subject seems to meet the letter of WP:AUTHOR, given that there is a source literally describing a book written by him as a "well-known work". bd2412 T 23:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination per comments above and improvements to article. Boleyn (talk) 05:17, 30 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) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIT Therapeutics (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:NCORP. PROD contested by article creator. shoy (reactions) 16:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. There is a brief item about their product in trial here but other than that and the usual listings I am seeing no coverage of this company (as distinct from the general field in which they operate, which provides the main article content and references and belongs in Nitric_oxide#Medical_use). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing in article is not enough. I was not able to find enough of substance. Company has a market cap of 36m and is traded OTC.Icewhiz (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete obvious promotion. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and getting more absurdly promotional as time goes on diff. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted A7 ... discospinster _talk 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard F Devon (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 Rhadow (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is already a correctly placed speedy tag on the page and it obviously vandalism so not sure why it's been put to AFD? - Pmedema (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hello Pmedema -- The AfD preceded the speedy tag. I think the system is working as it should. Rhadow (talk) 17:19, 29 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 Eleven International Publishing.  Sandstein  12:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Employment Law Cases (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 journal is neither well renowned nor has received significant media coverage Failosopher (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Eleven International Publishing, its owner, as it's mentioned there. postdlf (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't see anything indicating notability. Not sure about merging either, as I don't see anything establishing notability of the publisher... There's one other journal article (European Journal of Law Reform), which doesn't seem to be notable either. As an aside, note that all three articles (the 2 journals and the publisher) were created by a COI editor. --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliel Vieira (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 about a make-up artist consists mostly of lists of his clients. The article lacks independent, reliable sources writing about his work as a make-up artist. The sources used in this article are neither reliable nor independent. They are mostly brief mentions, don't mention him at all (cosmopolitan), or they are advertorials posing as tutorials, where an advertiser pays to receive a celebrity endorsement. That the celebrity in question has been manufactured by a marketing firm is not mentioned in the sources, who depend on advertising revenue from the cosmetic companies. Mduvekot (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable makeup artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article mentions several artists associated with him, but Notability is not inherited. Bolhones (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 James Bond in film#Bond 25 (2019). There is clear consensus here that the topic is too speculative for a standalone article at the moment. Hut 8.5 20:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bond 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete/salt and redirect to James Bond in film#Bond 25 (2019). It clearly fails WP:NFF since filming has not begun. Point #5 of WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Most of what is in the article at this point is a mix of Eon announcements and unsourced speculation, especially in the Lead (title, singer, etc.) BilCat (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to James Bond in film#Bond 25 (2019) (Are we only having this conversation because an IP decided to edit war to re-open a previous redirect?) Funnily enough I had the same conversation with SonOfThornhill and Prisonermonkeys on the Talk:Spectre (2015 film) page on ostensibly the same matter, and we came to the same decision about a redirect.

We had exactly the same discussion for the last film and the one before that. It's partly because the numbering is always suspect (this will be the 27th Bond film to be made, it's the 25th Eon film) but mostly per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". On all the previous Bond films I've worked on (the last 3 or 4), we've waited until the press conference that launches the name and the main actors, before we launch the page with the correct name. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the page was first restored by a registered user, and then by an IP (possibly the same user). Rather than edit war, I decided an AFD was warranted, especially as it will allow future restorations to be eligible for CSD. - BilCat (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Nothing has really happened on it yet. The whole article is just a bunch of announcements along with some speculation. And while the next James bond film may seem like a sure thing the series has had hiccups in the past, with the series being put on hiatus in the early 90s. So I agree with SchroCat: wait at least until it gets a title, and then create the article if there is sufficienct encyclopedic content. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect: half the article is speculation; the other half appears to be original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect: I agree. Wait at least until the film is titled and starts filming. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect fails WP:NFF; until filming is confirmed to have begun and the title is revealed. The redirect should also be fully protected to prevent further premature article creation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect As with the consensus, I believe it fails WP:NFF due to the fact that it is probably in pre-production and is frankly too far in the future to be certain if the movie will continue. In addition, the movie has no official title as of 29 August 2017 which makes the article completely unworthy of its own article. It is just a project name. Wait till the movies is shooting as confirmed and enough hard evidence on it notability comes up. For now, it is a future movie without a proper name. Dictonary1 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - Oh dear! The creator also created Draft:Shatterhand, which has now been moved to mainspace as Shatterhand (film)! Facepalm I'm not touching it. - BilCat (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft:Bond 25 also exists, and predates all these other versions. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear. I've moved Shatterhand back to Drafts with a note on the talk page. If it is moved back across I'll nom for deletion and link it to this discussion. – SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SchroCat — I'd send Shatterhand (film) to WP:RFD. It's a speculated title and they're a dime a dozen—I remember "The Emerald Sphere" being reported as a working title for what became Quantum of Solace. The only source I can find "reporting" Shatterhand is The Hindustan Times, and if production of Skyfall taught us anything it's that they're extraordinarily good at publishing misinformation. Also, I'd stop editing the Bond 25 article. The more crap we leave in there, the more likely it is to be deleted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 30 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) J947^{(c) (m)} 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar Plaza (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)

Seems like just another building to me. TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -To you, perhaps, but not to those in Myanmar. This page was requested by another user to be built. To my knowledge, Wikipedia is making efforts to be inclusive of non-English speaking countries and countries that are underrepresented. There are plenty of extra articles about Myanmar Plaza in the Burmese language, but I unfortunately cannot access them as I speak only English. I am hoping the page will be amended by those who are bilingual and can add to it. Brittney Tun

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, building does have considerable coverage in Burmese and some coverage in English too. www.myanmarinsider.com/a-sneak-peak-inside-myanmar-plaza/. www.yangonlife.com.mm/en/directory/myanmar-plaza-shopping-center. www.mmtimes.com/business/17998-myanmar-plaza-open-for-business.html --Failosopher (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Yes, and that link as well as many others are in the article. Brittney Tun —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable building in Myanmar should not be deleted unless there is support from locals which the proposer does not appear to be. Bkerensa (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the largest shopping complex in Yangon with significant coverage in news. Phyo WP (message) 22:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per above comments. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 03:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 04:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams (Virginia) (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)

Unelected politician, not a GNG pass independently of political activity. Effectively a campaign biography for a forthcoming electoral race. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unelected politicians are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As yet unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — but all of the media coverage here is directly campaign-related, which means there's no evidence that he would have cleared a Wikipedia notability standard for any other reason independent of his candidacy. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the election — but there's no evidence here that he passes any notability standard right now. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; strongest argument for notability is that he's a still-unelected candidate for a statewide office; and that's not enough. TJRC (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article creator. Meets WP:GNG with multiple in-depth profiles: Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Fairfax Times, WRIC, etc. Instaurare (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign-related coverage doesn't help get a candidate over WP:GNG in and of itself — if it did, then every candidate for anything would always pass GNG, because every candidate for anything always gets some campaign coverage. To get him an article before he wins the election, you would have to show that he had already received enough media coverage to clear GNG for other reasons completely independent of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. The standard for evaluating an un-elected candidate for a state-wide office is WP:NPOL and while the race for Attorney General may be notable, the candidates may not necessarily be per WP:BLP1E (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the title of article is not suitable due to the title should write for example John Adams (his career) but was written by name of town.Mr.ref (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone here; it's clear based on discussion at WP:VPP there's a consensus against keeping articles on candidates whose primary claim of notability is being a candidate in a down-ballot state-level race. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Guys Finish First (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 claim of notability seems absurdly niche. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bestsellers list reference says #42. Comes without a review. Two reviews on Amazon, one by a friend of the author. Amazon ranking #2,072,877. Rhadow (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG; no sources seemed to be available, though this was somewhat confounded by a song with a similar title. --Hazarasp (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 21:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power & Communication Contractors Association (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 organisation. WP:BEFORE checks reveal no independent coverage per WP:NORG. DrStrauss talk 13:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would also seem to fit speedy A7. But was a proper search made under WP:BEFORE?GoogleNews alone is not sufficient.   DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gbooks just has directory listings. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, WP:BEFORE has been done. DrStrauss talk 09:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Somewhat surprisingly, searches do not turn up any significant third-party coverage. There are some mentions in directories and congressional hearings, but these mentions are in passing. The association does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robotronic Squad (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:BAND. DrStrauss talk 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable references and none of the members appear to be notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  12:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Al-Medlij (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:NPOL, WP:GNG or any other part of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NPOL as the subject is an elected chairman/president of Kuwait Economic Association, which is a national office that is involved in politics/economy-related decision making. Added 4 additional independent sources to assure meeting WP:GNG. --Aaehasa (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails [WP:PROF]]; head of a NN NGO. Those sources don't convince me. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bearian. How do sources fail WP:PROOF? Sources #2 through #7 and #9 are mainstream newspapers, which are Al-Qabas, Al-Anba_(Kuwait), Al_Rai_(Kuwaiti_newspaper), Al-Jarida, Al-Seyassah and Annahar_(Kuwait). Sources #1 and #8, in the other hand, are linked to the official website of the association the subject is a head of. --Aaehasa (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if the board lacks an aritcle, being its chairman is not enough to make one notable. Sources do not establish notability, and being part of some board in and of itself does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnpacklambert. You have a point, the association must have an article and it is on my to-do list as appears on my user page. However, do you really think lack of an article of a "notable" association should prevent its chairman from passing WP notability guidelines? Notability isn't time-sensitive to what comes first into WP, is it? --Aaehasa (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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