< 10 July 12 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Campaign—Russian meeting[edit]

Trump Campaign—Russian meeting (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)

Wrong year. Revelations were in July 2017, not July 2017. Wrong title. Meeting itself was in June 2016, not July 2017. Empty page. No content whatsoever to speak of beyond one sentence. NOTE: Without prejudice to recreation or even a proper article itself. Sagecandor (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of expanding it. This just needs a page move, not a deletion. Don1182 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Keep", below. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that Donald Trump Jr.'s tweets are "fake news"... DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the difference between "pundits" and investigative journalists? This is not a "nothingburger" in any way and no chance of retraction since it is 100% true and Don Jr. confirmed it himself. Could you at least be informed with the basics before commenting in this discussion? You're embarrassing yourself. (Oh, and by the way, how does NOTESAL even apply here? This isn't a list!) NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The sky is blue." "FAKE NEWS!" NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're frustrated, but mind your decorum, please. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - who was the Russian "official" in this case? Atsme📞📧 23:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Attorney for the Russian government Natalia Veselnitskaya [1] (edit: The NY Times describe her as "a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer" the emails were one that used "Russian government attorney") WikiVirusC(talk) 00:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, she denied it - "answered “no” when asked if she had ever worked for the Russian government." per Guardian. The contradictory stories are reason enough to not publish these hot off the press nothingburgers for at least 7 days to allow the true information to surface instead of depending on MSM who are propagandizing and prostituting for ratings. I hope whoever closes this AfD considers all of the fake news and unsubstantiated propaganda, much of which is just plain wrong. It's embarrassing. Atsme📞📧 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Kremin-connected is a much different and loose statement than an attorney for Russia. That's why I added in the edit to say that her(someone) working for the Russian government was just from the email. I don't see what about this is propaganda, The NYT and Guardian both indicate that she denies ever working for the Russian government, the emails released by DTjr was what claimed she was an attorney for them. I believe these articles are unnecessary as well. Everything should just be put into the investigation or Russian-links article, and stay there until one of them becomes worthy of a split, which may never happen. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what "fake news" are you talking about? The accurate NYT report that was confirmed by Trump Jr. himself? Please don't let your opinion on the "mainstream media" influence your judgment in this discussion. NYT is a reputable and reliable source. Though I agree she isn't exactly a Russian official, she has connections to the Russian gov and it should be appropriate enough for merger into the Links to Russian officials article, or probably the Russian interference article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an encyclopedia. For research on what is happening on a complicated story in comprehensive detail, perhaps you can consult some other wiki. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event involved an American campaign meeting with a representative of a foreign government to help in a campaign. That is clearly WP:N and meets the WP:10YT.Casprings (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Paterson[edit]

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

Contested PROD, which was removed due to what I hope was a misunderstanding (I'd used the catch-all term "footballer" to describe the subject, meaning "a person who plays one of the various codes of football", but apparently this is "wrong" when referring to someone who plays a code other than association football/soccer). That said, the subject of the article remains stubbornly non-notable per WP:NRU, which is the applicable standard regardless of the categories claiming he's a former rugby league player. The New Zealand team he played for isn't at the appropriate level of competition, and the two Japanese clubs play in the Top League, which is not a fully professional competition did not play at the appropriate level at the time he was signed with them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted re that correction. Neither here nor there for the current debate, but the article on Top League indicates that most of the local players are amateurs (with the imports being professional). Not sure whether that's just one of those things or not, but it may be important for the relevant Wikiproject. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is another argument of if the league is at a high enough level but doesn't really affect this debate that the page should be removed.NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 20:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And I'll leave that discussion for specialists to have elsewhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Small[edit]

Allen Small (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 the leader of a minor political party, not referenced to any reliable source coverage. Leading a fringe party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, so to get him a standalone article it would need to be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about him in media to get him a WP:GNG pass — but this is referenced entirely to his self-published content about himself on his own website and that of the party. Primary sources do not assist in demonstrating notability, however — if he can't be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support an article, then he doesn't get to have a standalone biography separately from his name being listed in the article on the party. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without any sources that are not self-published, I support deletion. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jacques Chirac#Assassination attempt. Redirects are cheap! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 02:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moh Chelali[edit]

Moh Chelali (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 teacher and failed political candidate - WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and WP:TEACHER.

Chelali helped save the life of Jacques Chirac, which is interesting, but doesn't make him notable. If not delete, merge into Jacques Chirac#Assassination attempt. Madg2011 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of films considered the worst (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)

Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. See also this related AfD. (Note: It's been six years since the last AfD.) Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I don't agree, but consensus here is pretty clear. No point in dragging this out. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of films considered the best (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)

Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. See also this related AfD. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I don't agree, but consensus here is pretty clear. No point in dragging this out. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Unencyclopedic list: The list clearly meets the criteria at WP:LISTN which states "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." If you look at the sources used in the article there is no shortage of reliable sources discussing the greatest film, or a group of films that comprise the greatest according to some criteria. It is clearly a notable topic and therefore encyclopedic as determined by Wikipedia policy.
  2. Fails WP:LSC: LSC requires that "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." The list complies with LSC. Each entry is accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source. In short, a film doesn't make the list unless there is a reliable source proclaiming the entry to be the "best" in its category.
  3. No discernible uniform criteria: This is spelt out in the lead which states "This is a list of films voted the best in a notable survey—either by critics or by the public." There is even an edit notice to clarify the inclusion criteria: Template:Editnotices/Page/List of films considered the best
  4. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. The best this and that will always be subjective, but it is not subjectively determined by Wikipedia editors. The subjectivity is confined to the polls and and surveys, and each source must comply with Wikipedia's policies, as with any other source. WP:LSC does not bar lists with subjective membership, but merely requires that they are dealt with appropriately (i.e. sources and no OR).
  5. Subject is insanely broad. It is broad but not unmanageably so. There are a finite number of countries, a finite number of genres, and unsurprisingly a finite number of notable surveys and polls. That fact that there are larger film lists on Wikipedia than this one implies that the list is highly discriminate and the criteria laid down by the article is keeping the subject focused and manageable.
The upshot is that the list is notable, well sourced and has a highly discriminate criteria and there is no valid reason to delete it. I think the time has come for a moratorium on nominating this list for deletion; it just wastes everybody's time. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 02:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows considered the worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of television shows considered the worst (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)

Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. See also this related AfD. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oyin Adeyemi[edit]

Oyin Adeyemi (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 Darreg (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. company spam, account now blocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eslami Machine Manufacturing Co.[edit]

Eslami Machine Manufacturing Co. (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:NOTE. Advertising content, unlikely to find more valid sources. Article nominated and deleted per speedy deletion request in the past, see creators talk page. Probable user (User talk:Eslami.marzieh) COI considering Username and company name. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum Entertainment[edit]

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

Page was created and maintained by employees or officials from the company itself, under the two accounts AsylumEnt and Asylument818 (yes, two of them, either be blocked for sockpuppetry). Almost the entire article is unsourced, with only minor notability coming through a single source--Deadline.com--which is not enough for constructing significance for enwiki, wherefore the article fails WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, the entire filmography table is sourced through IMDb, violating WP:Citing IMDb, then again notability is not inherited. Lordtobi (✉) 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Chmelevski[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Martin (Wikimedia)[edit]

Nathalie Martin (Wikimedia) (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)

IMO, Nathalie Martin does not meet the notability criterias, because no large-scale source focuses on her, and she is just mentioned in a few articles. NAH 18:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add, if RS consider this controversy notable fine, they do not. Thus it is not a notable controversy, thus she is not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone sent me a timeline of events (in French), and what I could make out (via Google Translate) sounds pretty bad. While I don't want to help someone up to no good cover their tracks, are there any options besides keeping this article to do that? This article is just one event in a constellation of behavior, could an investigation against the offending users be done? At a minimum its sounds like User:R.wi.go and User:Punishar could be sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I know how to initiate a sock-puppet investigation, but I don't if there's a way to initiate some kind of more-general WP:COI investigation. I'm probably not the person to do either of these things. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(for info) - An English version of that timeline can be found here. Not greatly relevant to the AfD but in case anyone else is wondering what's going on. The Land (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but it looks less complete than the French one (probably for obvious reasons). It's missing the entry that discussed the bio that we're currently AfD'ing. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Check User tools for Sock-puppetry investigation can only check edit less than 3 months old... They can't be used to check any link here. Anyway it does not matter: this article should not be analysed in the context of anything linked with the Wikimedia France Association controversy. The only question that matters right now for Wikipedia is to check if the topic of this article (ie Nathalie Martin) is notorious enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. Both problems should not be mixed. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals over 80 in Papal conclave, 2005[edit]

Cardinals over 80 in Papal conclave, 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals over the age of 80 in Papal conclave, 2013. Merging to either the main conclave article or the list of cardinals who did participate would make little sense: not participating in conclaves upon turning 80 has been the standard practice after the reforms of Pope Paul VI following the Second Vatican Council, and these individuals are not notable as a group for not doing something. At most, it could be mentioned in their individual articles, but even then I don't think it would be required. Not doing something that one is not expected to do isn't notable for an article on its own or noteworthy for inclusion in another article in most cases. Additionally, as it stands, the article is entirely unsourced. My suspicion having done work with conclaves on Wikipedia would be that the origin source is the Salvador Miranda page on cardinals, which is self-published. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Meets WP:GNG per the new sourcing etc. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 02:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Davis[edit]

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

While he most likely will be notable, he's not there yet. All he has done was co-direct (not even direct) a film that hasn't even come out yet. JDDJS (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have also begun a list of additional sources to be incorporated on the entry's talk page. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to lonelygirl15. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh Flinders[edit]

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

Seemingly unnotable-- most of the information is referring to insignificant short films featured at relatively minor festivals. Being one of three people to create lonelygirl doesn't seem notable, and the fact is that this reads like a promo piece

‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Spirit (2018 film)[edit]

Teen Spirit (2018 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)

See film notability guidelines. This is an unreleased film in production. Unreleased films in production are only notable if the production itself is notable. This article does not indicate anything notable about the production. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed an unreleased film that is currently in principal production but it is a notable production. There is no way to prove otherwise because it is a film. It has multiple references backing it up, that makes it notable. It is notable as being the directorial debut of actor Max Minghella and as being a film starring Elle Fanning. It is notable being as it is a film in principal production. TheMovieGuy (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. passes GNG, sources are reliable (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Wilkerson[edit]

April Wilkerson (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 vanity article with promotional links . The specified person is one of many youtubers DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Popular Mechanics, LA Daily News, and Lifehacker Australia are reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandor Clegane[edit]

Sandor Clegane (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 verify the real-world notability WP:NFICT of this character. The sources in this artcile verify the notability of actor Rory McCann, but not of the character in itself. Sources which WP:V verify the general real-world notability WP:GNG of this character must neither be primary (like Martin's books or SPS by HBO). Therefore this character may be an unsuitable subject for a standalone article. Suitable sources which verify the GNG of this character must be secondary, reliable and have this character (not the actor) as the primary subject of a chapter or whole article. AadaamS (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:TRIVIALMENTION here [3], or for that matter here [4] or here [5]. Care to re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed, a merge to the list article would of course be the best option, preferable to both keep & delete. Plus a redirect of course. Notable characters are figures like Superman or Sherlock Holmes. Those characters are generally notable. AadaamS (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is unsupported by Wikipedia notability policy. Perhaps you should not be nominating fictional elements for deletion, AadaamS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, perhaps I should. AadaamS (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And last year, AadaamS, you had something like two deletions go through (and two redirects) on something like a dozen fictional element nominations? That's weak sauce, brah. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brah? Your underwear is your business but its content it should not be used for typing. A couple of those that didn't go through weren't demonstrated to live up to the GNG, like this one. Fanboys are many in enwp and they protect unworthy articles. AadaamS (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you nominated Serena van der Wooten for deletion even though there is a chapter on the character here [6] among many other reliable sources discussing the character. I get the feeling that you're not very good at this, and referring to SisterTwister and Deathlibrarian as "fanboys" (the Keep voters in the case you chose to cite) is just loopy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Serena van der Woodsen you mean. You are frequently using bullying and rudeness to get your way, but you will overcome those deficiencies given a lot of time. You, Deathlibrarian and SisterTwister all fail to comprehend what general notability means. It doesn't mean that a character is notable among GOT or GG fans, it means a character is notable to people who have never watched GOT or GG. AadaamS (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I'm not a GG (obviously) or GoT series fan. I'm not a fan of certain other books or shows, either, but when scholarly secondary literature exists on the characters, then those characters are notable, period. It's not a matter of whether you or I recognize (or can spell) their names, as non-fans; once again you have advanced a complete misunderstanding of the WP:GNG. WP:N is not reserved for the likes of Sherlock Holmes and Superman, which is literally what you argued above: it depends on whether or not WP:RS exist. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in spite of the comment immediately above, the businessinsider source is directly concerned with the subject and speaks directly to notability: how much stronger documentation is there, for the notability of a fictional character, than businessinsider reporting on the character's survival in the TV adaptation? And the google book reference contains one essay which "addresses the topic significantly and in detail", which is the exact definition of significant coverage. Whatever Hijiri's issues might be about other editors who are participating in this discussion, those issues have nothing to do with the topic of this AfD, and indeed really ought to be struck from the record. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are showing a gross misunderstanding of GNG, in particular its requirement for significant coverage. The businessinsider source discussing the character's survival in the TV series is only useful for making the claim that, prior to the release of season 6, people were speculating that the character was still alive. GNG is about having enough sources to write an article, not having some arithmetic number of sources just to "demonstrate notability", and so no sources that include nothing but plot information -- which we are technically allowed cite to primary sources, as much as I might resent that -- can be used for GNG purposes. And, just like on the Tony Chang AFD, you are behaving disruptively by requesting that I strike my comment just because you don't like what I wrote -- indeed, your use of a passive verb makes it look like you are condoning/provoking vandalism of my comment by someone else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, I am asking you again, politely: please stop with the off-topic comments, and strike your own comments when they are off-topic. Nobody will do it for you.
The businessinsider source contributes to the notability of the fictional subject, by demonstrating that independent, reliable sources find the subject worthy of treatment. None of the sources I are limited to plot information - the businessinsider source, for example, discusses both the fan theories and reception of the plot developments, which is not "nothing but plot information" as you describe. The critical sources I provided are among many that provide interpretation and analysis of the character.
Please, Hijiri; stick to the facts, and stop the wall of text. Newimpartial (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your claiming that my comments to the effect that two of the other "keep" !votes should be treated with the appropriate weight (not "stricken", mind you) given how both users preemptively stated that they would likely oppose any AFD on a GOT character article is off-topic and should be ignored, but that your own comments about me to the exact same effect are valid is ... well, it's why I am frankly sick of interacting with you. Kindly leave me alone and stop bludgeoning every discussion in which you participate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't, and my contribution history bears that out. In this discussion, for example, I only responded to the nom and to you - who named me explicitly in your post, even though I was observing voluntary IBAN protocols so that we would not irritate each other any more. But it seems that you just can't help naming me or replying to my posts. Your WP:BLUDGEON looks Australian to me.
Do you really not see why it would be preferable to restrict your comments to editors' actual interventions in the AfD, rather than applying ad hominem arguments based on interactions elsewhere? That is all I want. Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You bludgeoned the hell out of the Tony Chang AFD, and here you would undoubtedly do the same if anyone were supporting the proposed deletion. In fact you are so desperate to bludgeon something that you are bludgeoning a "Keep for the moment" !voter. I have no reason to assume the rest of your contribution is any different.
And no, my comment is not ad hominem. Editors who should not even be here (they were allowed back from an indef block on condition that they cause no more disruption ever again, and they have caused no end of disruption in the last two months alone) would be one thing, if they hadn't preemptively stated that they would oppose any AFD on an article in this category, and Jclemens, while they certainly have a right to express their opinion, should be recognized as having already shown a poor understanding of GNG in relation to an article closely linked to this one in the very recent past.[7]
And then you showed the exact same poor understanding in this AFD, immediately above here. The simple fact is that sources that only include plot summary (and/or information irrelevant to this particular fictional character) cannot be used to write a standalone article, regardless of how "famous" the character might be and how many articles you can dig up that illustrate that fame.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles I cited above are limited to a plot summary; all of them provide additional discussion of the significance of the fictional character. Which I already stated above, and which you would know had you read them. Also, please don't cite your own one-sided arguments in making an ad hominem challenge to another editor. It's poor form. Stick to the actual discussion here.
I will not read the rest of your wall of text, Hijiri. Drop the WP:BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will be the last thing I write here since, like I said two replies ago, I am sick of dealing with you. One of the sources you found was a bare GBooks link: I had to search for "Sandor" myself and the only things I found were plot details; another was an article speculating on the character's then-forthcoming return in the show with very little to offer beyond what could already be cited directly to the show itself; only one was good for GNG purposes.
Nothing I wrote was an ad hominem argument: you could claim that it was off-topic (and I would disagree as I did above), but how exactly could I be making ad hominem arguments to delete the article, when I am not even arguing for the article to be deleted? I added necessary clarification of previous discussions related to this AFD, which you clearly have not read.
And your accusing me of BLUDGEON is pretty laughable. If I wanted to BLUDGEON this or any other discussion, I would start posting strings of comments beneath every comment I disagreed with, and I have not done this either here or in the Tony Chang AFD, so it really isn't clear what you are referring to.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the walls of text; could I make that any more clear? Also, your ad hominem arguments refer to the (perfectly sound) contributions of two editors here, which you want to dismiss based on disagreements you have had with them elsewhere. That is a perfect example of ad hominem - you should stick with discussing what is actually written in this discussion.
The google book contains a whole essay that opens with and contains significant critical discussion of Sandor; that is not anything like "plot details", and neither is the audience reception analysis included in the businessinsider piece. Based on this evidence, I would question your reading comprehension. And if you think that these kinds of discussion do not contribute to WP:N, then I'm afraid your judgement on the matter should not be trusted, either. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean 'Seanizzle' Reid[edit]

Sean 'Seanizzle' Reid (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)

Big claims of notability; all mouth and no trousers in my opinion. No decent references and reeks of promotional puffery. TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services § Closed/defunct services. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthas.com[edit]

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

merge with Yahoo!. nothing is here. easily can be done. Light2021 (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxpanda[edit]

Maxpanda (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)

blatant promotion on Wikipedia. its not brochure or blog for products as it has been done here. No notable coverage on media. Light2021 (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheen Javed[edit]

Sheen Javed (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)

cited sources are not reliable enough to be used here. fails to meet WP:ACTORS and basic WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. An Afd is not required for such a merge, as stated by the closing administrator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMC Dine-In Madison 6 (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Cinemas[edit]

Sundance Cinemas (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)

Discussion on AMC Dine-In Madison 6 page suggests this page should be merged with Sundance Group.

This was a mistake. I meant to merge, and I thought it involved deletion. CR85747 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Josephs[edit]

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

Subject has some press mentions from last decade in his role at the National Society for Epilepsy, but nothing that looks like significant coverage to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In absence of any nomination rationale, the merits of the keep !votes couldn't be judged and the article may be deemed to have been procedurally kept. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 02:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kent RO Systems[edit]

Kent RO Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · RO Systems Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article about a notable Indian company passes WP:GNG Anoptimistix (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding edit was the first Wikipedia edit by this ip Atlantic306 (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 117.212.121.160. Kent is a company like Eureka Forbes. It is very well known in India and I think people would like to read about it. If Eureka Forbes can be included, Kent should be too.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Noonmati. The keep !votes(one of which resulted from the article creator) failed to put forward any suitable argument/sources for inclusion. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 02:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Jyotinagar[edit]

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

An unremarkable residential area of a suburb of a city. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:GEOFEAT. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know what evidence Wikipedia needs for inclusion of this locality. Also what process is involved after which it is confirmed this locality is to be excluded?- Nikish Das — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikish21 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City —> Suburb —> residential area.
Talking about India, almost every set of 20 houses has a name in India. Usually ending with "Nagar" among Colony, Mahallah, and few names. As all of these places have houses, they are populated. You will not believe my statements, and I am not asking you to. But I insist you to visit wikimapia, and search for "Parbhani" (it is a city) then zoom in anywhere that you want. You will see that my statements are correct. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn I agree with DreamLinker. If somebody has something to say, including Kind Tennis Fan, kindly make your argument before this discussion being closed. I request to the closing editor to not to close the discussion before seven days from being relisted. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to decide here itself whether we go for a standalone article (keep) or for a merge. Rather than another discussion on the talk, it would be easier to discuss and decide right here.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: Thats what I meant, to decide it in this discussion. Thats why I asked for more time ;) —usernamekiran(talk) 02:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aijaz Ahmad Mangi[edit]

Aijaz Ahmad Mangi (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 many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. I don't think interviews make you notable. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Echo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Vocalist for several bands, but does not meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Luković[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Milan Luković (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 previous AfD appears to have been kept based off of Assertion of notability votes, but did not actually supply any references or sources that would in fact pass WP:GNG. The assertion was that since the subject played on a national team, he is therefore notable, even though the sport specific guideline, WP:NHOCKEY (which itself is still subject to GNG even if a player meets one of the criteria) specifically calls out only the top division national teams to have presumed notability. The player mostly played in the third tier of the IIHF championship, not for The World Championship, just to earn promotion (which they earned in 2008–09, but only up to the second tier before being relegated back down again). As shown in his stats sheet, he has also not played in a league that has presumed notability as researched and documented in the league assessment for presumed player notability, an essay written to document leagues that have been known to be covered well enough in media that GNG-relevant sources should be able to be found.

For a similarly disproved Assertion of Notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogdan Janković (2nd nomination). Yosemiter (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander Baloch[edit]

Sikander Baloch (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 many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Bois[edit]

Curtis Bois (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 seeing the necessary coverage and appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any individual awards and not playing in a well covered league for long enough to presume notability. He played in a non-notable overseas tournament as part of being a college conference All-Star (not an NCAA All-American), but I am not seeing much coverage on that either. Yosemiter (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Beaudoin[edit]

Nic Beaudoin (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any individual awards and not playing in a well covered league for long enough to presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Yes, but only if he was on the senior national team while playing for The World Championship per NHOCKEY #6 (or in the Olympics, but that would also pass NOLYMPICS). I have found no evidence that ever played during the 1997 or 1998 tournaments. Based off the routine sources that I found, he played in exhibition games against teams such as Belarus, Japan, and Switzerland. Yosemiter (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one I am a little more torn on, as he was on the NTL team when it was a permanent travelling team. It is something we have never accounted for. I would probably rate it as around AHL level but if no sources can be found that is moot. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ValueLabs[edit]

ValueLabs (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)

Press coverage. Non-notable awards such as CIO Review. Highly promotional in nature, only purpose of this article to promote it. Corporate Spam. Wikipedia is not a directory. Light2021 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...global IT services and consulting company that provides custom information technology and business consulting services! Etc.

Basically, corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aniq Naji[edit]

Aniq Naji (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 many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Outer Plane. SoWhy 09:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Limbo (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quake (Transformers)[edit]

Quake (Transformers) (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 does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor character across all incarnations, not worth redirecting. Anyone searching this term will be familiar enough with the fiction to find what they're looking for in another article. The material here is best suited for fansites. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 09:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florent Andorra[edit]

Florent Andorra (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)

Won an award as part of a team; doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Grochola[edit]

Pawel Grochola (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:ENT or WP:GNG. Won a notable award, but the award was for the whole team. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zazen (band)[edit]

Zazen (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)

Non-notable band, fails WP:GNG. - TheMagnificentist 16:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Hussain[edit]

Katrina Hussain (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 many WP:RS to verify her biography per WP:V. No notable award or major achievement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mishal Bukhari[edit]

Mishal Bukhari (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 many WP:RS to verify her claims in this biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. No notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName.

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName.

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

The result was merge to List of asanas. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uttana Shishosana[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as 68.151.25.115 can not create AfDs, being an IP, and refuses to create an account. His/Her reasoning is "the only reliable source may be yogajournal.com. articles need 2 in order to be notable" [11]. I don't care one way or the other on this AfD. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Phil K. And redirect. The !votes to delete weere to some extent countered by the possibility of a reliable source demonstrating notability; conversely, ther were no !Votes to keep the article. Ultimately tere was no demonstrable consensus to delete, so, per WP:ATD, closing as M&D. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 07:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Tolerance Recordings[edit]

Zero Tolerance Recordings (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 record label. - TheMagnificentist 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect/merge to Phil K?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No participation in 24 days, no prejudice on renomination (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher "Tito JustMusic" Trujillo[edit]

Christopher "Tito JustMusic" Trujillo (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 to meet WP:NMUSIC ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 07:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teargas & Plateglass[edit]

Teargas & Plateglass (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 musicians. Fail WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. - TheMagnificentist 15:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 12:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SoWhy 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Newnham[edit]

Rick Newnham (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)

Vanity page for an economist, sourced only to connected sources. Puffed up list of accomplishments; Global Shaper, Ambassador for Australia Day, Young Western Australian of the Year (Recognises the personal and professional endeavours of a young person aged 18 – 25 years who has fostered a significant positive change in their life and the lives of others in the community.), Saïd Business School prize. Non of these are notable, or have received attention in independent, reliable sources Mduvekot (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about this: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]

View articles clearly shows it is within scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averagejoe2017 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Muhammad Anwar[edit]

Raja Muhammad Anwar (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 many WP:RS to verify his biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:WRITER. Greenbörg (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SoWhy 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tranby Croft (band)[edit]

Tranby Croft (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)

I have been unable to find information in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate that this is a well-known band. The mention in the Book of Lists is less than one sentence. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. @Groovy12: If you wish to have a copy of this to work on it in your userspace until notability can be established, leave me a message. SoWhy 07:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortanix[edit]

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

Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: It might have some references but Wikipedia is not a company listing site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Th sources you cite above are all brief reports of the same thing. That is not in-depth, independent, coverage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, please take another look at Intellyx. It's unrelated to the briefing and appeared in Feb. Also, Foundation is in-depth. Again, if I apply the same standard as other articles, this could be considered WP:CORPDEPTH. Groovy12 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Groovy12, you are the creator of this article, right? This is a listing entry. That's not what Wikipedia is for. You can have a hundred sources and it's still a listing. It doesn't make a claim to anything that justifies an entry in an encyclopedia. The article itself has no CORPDEPTH. The company just isn't important. It's only important to the person who wants to increase that company's market presence - that's not what Wikipedia is for either. We don't take other articles into consideration - perhaps they should be deleted too: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, yes, obviously I created the article. I take offense with your statement "It's only important to the person who wants to increase that company's market presence" that insinuates I have some ulterior motive. I've been contributing (both content and $$) to wikipedia for at least last 10 years. Obviously, you and other admins volunteer much more time and energy than me to this cause and I applaud you for that. But, this experience has been bitter.
If the company is worth an article, which obviously I believe, I'm doing useful work to humanity even if I create a small page on the company. Others can and should subsequently contribute to it. I feel that you seem to have made your mind that this article shouldn't exist and have been finding new reasons for that
   - in the beginning, you said it's not enough references. I added them.
   - then, you said it's just a listing. I explained why Intel SGX is a big deal and this is legit company. I added how similar coverage has been enough for other companies.
   - then, you said the references all point to same event. I explained why that's not the case.
   - now, you are saying the articles for other companies also shouldn't exist.
   - now, you are questioning my motivation.
For someone like me who is not really entrenched in daily discussions on wikipedia, I may not understand all the nuances of being encyclopedia noteworthy. It's far easier for me to see it in practice and apply the same standard to new page. I applied that standard and it met the bar and I started contributing.
If you simply didnt want this article to exist, you should have said so in the beginning. It'd have saved me time and frustration. But, instead you progressively kept adding new bars.
I have said all I need to on this topic. You guys decide whether to keep and enhance or delete the article. In any case, I'll keep being active and contribute to other pages, but will not opine anymore on this topic. Groovy12 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SoWhy 07:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ergotron[edit]

Ergotron (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)

Blatant Promotion. Non-notable. Light2021 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam ul Haq[edit]

Islam ul Haq (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 many WP:RS to verify his self-promotional biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Greenbörg (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam ul Haque. Greenbörg (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf M. Saleem[edit]

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

There is no WP:RS to verify his self-promotional biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG and might fail subject-specific criteria too. Greenbörg (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Catholic Medical Association. North America1000 02:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Medical Students Association[edit]

Catholic Medical Students 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)

Part of the Catholic Medical Association should merge with that Rathfelder (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to American Board of Emergency Medicine. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Certification in Emergency Medicine[edit]

Board of Certification in Emergency Medicine (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 to be part of the American Board of Emergency Medicine. Should merge with that. Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Arruda[edit]

Suzanne Arruda (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)

Cannot find any sources to indicate she passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. De-prodded with rationale "widely held books--look for reviews . might meet WP:AUTHOR". I believe they were referring to NAUTHOR points 3 and 4 which suggest the author might be notable if their body of work is notable, but I can't find anything to suggest that is the case for this series. There are reviews from Publishers Weekly, but since they review everything, that can hardly be taken as evidence of notability. Other than that, I don't see anything.

As always, happy to withdraw if there is an indication that I've totally missed something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not even appear to meet a credible claim of significance, much less notability. Support deletion. ThePortaller (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gregory Dark per WP:ATD-R. SoWhy 07:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object of Obsession[edit]

Object of Obsession (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)
Alts:
type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The discussion about whether the last RfC on SCHOOLOUTCOMES changed something is moot since even the previous consensus ([25]) did not allow for keeping a school when no independent sources proved its existence. Consensus here is that not even the existence can be proven, rendering the discussion, whether SCHOOLOUTCOMES is to applied differently now, moot. SoWhy 09:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge International School of Tunis[edit]

Cambridge International School of Tunis (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 about this at all. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 07:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus about what? Secondary schools are required to meet GNG or ORG (Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Schools). This doesn't. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus that generally all secondary schools that are proven to exist are notable. Something that has been established at AfD for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are no independent reliable sources that I have seen that prove that it exists. All I can find is a couple forum posts, some job advertisements, and their website itself (i.e. it probably exists). What is the point of a wikipedia page about an organization when we have no sources to report about it and have practically nothing to say about it? Almost all of the details currently on the page are not WP:VERIFIABLE, as they have been sourced entirely from the school's own web page or are not sourced at all and no reliable secondary sources exist about the subject. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also RFC on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. Says that you shouldn't use it as an argument in deletion discussions. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is using it as a counter-argument. Consensus was established long before anyone noted it in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The RfC did not say that secondary schools were not notable and any claim that it did has proved highly controversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp Schooloutcomes is not an argument to keep, that was the result of the RfC, your statement above "Something that has been established at AfD for many years" is essentially using schooloutcomes as an argument. Notability must be proven through WP:GNG or WP:ORG (It states this clearly at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Schools). In short, unless this school has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization (it hasn't), it has no business on wikipedia. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say SCHOOLOUTCOMES was an argument to keep. As I believe I just said. I never even mentioned it. That was you! SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely summarises an existing consensus. And the RfC, despite the desperate, tedious and refuted claims of the deletionist brigade, did not change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't an argument to keep, but the consensus that it summaries is? Interesting. In any case, we have no reliable independent sources verifying that it exists, so anything regarding SCHOOLOUTCOMES (or the totally not-at-all-related consensus that it summarizes) is moot. Have you any other arguments to keep the article? Perhaps a reliable independent source or two? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Some people were just using SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an argument in itself. It isn't because it's just a summary. But the consensus clearly is a reason to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Baldock[edit]

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

no evidence for meeting NARTIST - and apparently a paid article in violation of the terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Code the Future[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as declined candidate for speedy deletion under A7. Tagger noted notability as the main concern, particularly a reliance on self-published and local sources. Relevant notability guidelines: the general notability guideline and organization-specific guidelines.

I have no opinion on this article. Appable (talk | contributions) 05:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Wake County[edit]

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

No indication of general notability or of satisfying the guideline on geographic named places. Does not appear to be a legally defined or named place. (Each of the towns is a named place and rates its own article.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist)[edit]

Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist) (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 individual, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I failed to find any evidence to support his contribution in any film listed in the article except Bahniman where he co-wrote the lyrics, current references are either press release, self-published, or blogs. The article been deleted multiple times under different titles Rajdweep and Rajdweep (writer). PROD removed by the author without explanation. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment An article from The Northeast Today added. Along with The Assam Tribune , The Telegraph (Calcutta) articles makes it pass WP:GNG. All the 3 are reputed news papers from North East BetterSmile:D 06:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
All three sources are passing mentions none talk about the subject independently and in details to support WP:GNG or WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment How can you say that ? Article 1 This article only talks about the person throughout the article. Please dont be blind towards the evidence BetterSmile:D 07:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Well I see this source as a piece of advertisement and/or paid publicity which reads more like an interview and everyone know how print media works especially Indian media who happily act as PR agents for anyone who claims to be a star and write anything for some bucks. We need better third party sources to establish notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment You may think the way you like. But when commenting in wiki as an editor be little more responsible as you just said , all similar news articles are paid, then there is no need for such reference articles in wiki. Please talk sense BetterSmile:D 09:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
I don't see the Assam Tribune as a paid piece. If it were, there should be a disclosure. To claim such, we would need to have something other than its promotional tone to prove it. However, it would not be reliable as he is currently a journalist for that organization. While not really a self-published piece, I look at it like an organization who publishes content about its own members or employees. There really isn't an editorial process when they write about their own and therefore I don't consider the piece reliable.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are nothing more than passing mention except #1 which reads like an advertisement and/or interview as I said above. Source 7, 8, 9 and 10 are not reliable 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are talking about the same event which qualify as WP:OVERKILL none provide more than a passing mention, which is insufficient to satisfy the inclusion notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was to keep the renamed article. Would be nice if someone put the references found by User:Joe Roe into the article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likhichajj stone age paintings[edit]

Likhichajj stone age paintings (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)

Mostly incomprehensible, although probably a travelogue (and so original research). No references and so no verifiability. If this is about ancient art, there is no discussion of its notability, which would be based on what reliable sources such as archeologists have said (but no such discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Moved to Pahargarh caves BetterSmile:D 12:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
We usually hold off on moves until after the AfD is complete, but thanks Bettersmiley. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Sorry for that :) . Shall we move it back ? BetterSmile:D 14:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
It's not a big deal, probably best to leave it now. – Joe (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't It Romantic (2019 film)[edit]

Isn't It Romantic (2019 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)

According to film notability guidelines, an unreleased film that is in principal photography is only notable if the production itself is notable, that is, has been covered by independent sources. There is no mention of anything notable about the production. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Esteves[edit]

Madison Esteves (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)

Esteves' only claim to fame was being Miss Arizona, which in and of itself is not enough to indicate notability. The only sources on her are either internat pageant related sources, or articles about the pageant she won itself that only mention her as the winner, and are not about her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Grand Prix motorcycle racing. czar 07:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 MotoGP season[edit]

2019 MotoGP season (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:TOOSOON. Season is over a year away and article mostly consists of citations copied and pasted from 2018 article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 01:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus has shifted to keeping per WP:HEY after cleanup. Even if notability is actually lacking, a merge or redirect to one of the notable organizations he belongs to can always be considered before renominating. SoWhy 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Reinstein[edit]

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

subject fails WP:GNG. Only passing mentions on relatively primary sources could be found. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gilabrand: the sources you added are primary and not reliable for the subject to meet GNG. I could only see passing mentions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Press, Haaretz and Ynet are not primary sources at all. They are reliable news sources in every respect.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But they are just passing mentions about the subject. No? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The fact that his name crops up in all these articles is not coincidental. It is because he is a key figure in the Israeli parliamentary lobby to encourage Christians to voice support for Israel.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources that pop up in this [39] gNews search of his name do support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, there is at least one other profile "Canadian immigrant running for slot on Habayit Hayehudi list to 'save Jerusalem'" [40].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, E.M.Gregory. That's quite a short profile, but it all helps. Looking at the article and sources again, I am surprised that someone named the 49th most influential Jewish person in the world hasn't been the subject of more coverage. Could it be that there is more coverage in other languages (specifically Hebrew)? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete - I appreciate the effort made by Gilabrand to attempt to improve the article but unless there is more significant coverage, not just passing mentions, it does not fulfill notability requirements.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that there are NOT "just passing mentions"; there have been profiles. But more to the point "passing mentions" is hardly a an accurate description of the nature of the coverage, which in stories like this [41] on from NPR or this one [42], Christian Science Monitor, in which news organizations request and cite him offering policy analysis. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Weak keep since his position as president of a notable organization makes this notable enough to avoid simply deleting the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist given recent improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lizarettez[edit]

Lizarettez (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:HOAX, the sources and external links either 404, or are related to Juice (film). Cannot find any WP:RS of this film existing on Google Jumpytoo Talk 01:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 03:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marisha Ray[edit]

Marisha Ray (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)

Minor actor and voice actor sourced to trivial sources with no indication of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nubreed 7[edit]

Nubreed 7 (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)

Appears to have been missed in the bundled nom for the other Nubreed albums: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nubreed 001. Same rationale applies: not particularly notable, fails WP:NALBUM. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on the topic but I wonder if there's enough critical content in those reviews to support an article on the series as a whole? Obviously if they're just like "great album good job" then no, but if they talk about previous NuBreed albums and compare them, that actually might pass GNG and be worth documenting in a standalone. YMMV if you actually want to do that but it's a thought. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PMC: I agree that where you have a series of albums like this, there's more chance of a decent stand-alone article if you focus on the series as a whole rather than the individual albums. The NuBreed series was a spin-off from the successful Global Underground series, designed to highlight up-and-coming DJs (hence the series title) rather than the established DJ names who mixed the GU albums. So in this case it would make more sense to include the albums within the Global Underground article, and indeed that is where they are mentioned: Global Underground#Nubreed. Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category