< 18 July 20 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 redirect to Micronation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Copeman[edit]

Nick Copeman (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)

Lack of notability: mentioned in a few news-of-the-weird books, no news articles on him. PROD tried, but new user removed. Bromley86 (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:53, 20 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. There is lots of discussion here but no real agreement on whether the sources are sufficient to demonstrate Farmdrop's notability. Note that this close shouldn't stop a cleanout of the article if editors deem it to be low quality or promotional in tone. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farmdrop[edit]

Farmdrop (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)

Clear WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Promotion and WP:Deletion policy concerns because both information and sources are advertising; worse, the promotionalism couldn't simply be fixed since (1) the Overview section is literally a mirror image of the company website, (2) is closely similar and (3) is not significant. Article sources analysis: FarmDrop, a company that acts as a distributor for food from local farmers and producers to customers nearby. Now operating in London, the company says the average distance between the customer and the producer of the food that they have bought is 30 miles. With a supermarket, this can extend to 600 miles, according to the company. Having grown to a staff of 20, FarmDrop has eschewed a marketing budget in order to keep prices lower and has thrived, according to [owner]., 2nd is about starting a food campaign in a local trade publication, 3rd is a funding report which is unacceptable for WP:CORP, 4rd is an interview, 5th is fix the food supply chain by removing unnecessary middlemen to give consumers better quality, fresher food and producers a fairer financial deal. Farmers and producers are given an average of 70 per cent of sale revenue through Farmdrop as opposed to 30 per cent from supermarkets, 6th is similar to 4 with a company interview and armDrop recruits a local person – or ‘keeper’ – to organise the scheme in their area, running the weekly ‘drops’ and recruiting nearby producers. The keeper and FarmDrop get 10% each, and the farmers retain 80% of all profits, 7th is [Owner says], Customers then log on, type in their postcode to find their nearest FarmDrop, and place an order (a minimum of £5). At an allotted time each week the farmer delivers the produce to the ‘drop’ – a pub, town hall, school or cafe – which is managed by a ‘keeper’ who deals with customers coming to pick up the weekly orders. The producer keeps 80 per cent of sales, a keeper makes 10 per cent and 10 per cent goes to FarmDrop....[owner says]. and both 8 and 9 are local news reports about the company's financials and 10 is closely similar and finally 11 is another company interview. There's one last link, a review but it's yet again another local trade publisher, so not enough for GNG. Also, see the equally promotional sources found: 1-2, 8, 10, 11, 19, 21 are local business reports, 3, 5, 7, 15-18, 22, 31-34, 35, 37, 41-44 are funding reports, 4 is equally similar as before but it's instead a company-sourced profile (Producers who sell via Farmdrop are also given a roughly 75 percent...." and closely behind that is 23-29 & 36 until it eventually repeats the cycle. Promotional always outweighs general notability especially when the latter cites "independent reliable coverage sources", especially when TheGuardian itself says it welcomes sponsored or donated stories. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Churnalism and Video news release for present day strategies regarding such endeavors. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
which was meant to address previous delete commentary that a lot of the media coverage / google results are about funding rounds. Hence the comparison with HelloFresh. Over the years, Farmdrop has had regular editorial coverage in the guardian, the independent, the evening standard, the FT (paywall). In my book, this passes GNG. As someone said previously, concerns about tonality can be addressed. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomader On what policy basis? Because both WP:Deletion and WP:Wikipedia is not both state how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia....Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" so promotional content can in fact be removed by this alone. At best, we would need a fundamental rewrite here with significant changes to appeal our 2 policies. Also, to add, GNG also says, "If is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy" therefore GNG itself compliments to our policy's own findings. Since the nomination was based in policy, the Delete votes have agreed with those findings. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister I suppose I could have definitely clarified that comment much better. What I'm saying is-- if there's sources that are independent and notable per WP:GNG, we should not just delete articles willy nilly because they're *currently* written in a promotional tone if they have a hope that they could be improved. Quoting the policy, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject-- therefore, I supported !voted keep. I hope that helps to explain my rationale. Nomader (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add to this here-- articles like this [2] clearly do meet WP:GNG and pass the WP:NOT test that you're referring to. That's why this is a !keep-- not the guidebook stuff that you're referring to. Nomader (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually GNG is not policy, unlike WP:NOT which is; a for the source, it was analyzed in the Delete comments above where it was found to be promotional. Any article that is about "staying local and fresh food with Farmdrop": See first red highlight above and also Some 70 producers now supply goods to FarmDrop, which then delivers the food using electric vans within zones one to three in the London area. Where a producer cannot be found in the local area, for example with salmon, they will source one from as close as possible, it will adopt a hub model where a new network of local producers will be sourced around that area to maintain the same close proximity with the customers, said Pugh.The card can be loaded with value, much like a standard gift card from a chain store, and can then be spent in a network of 120 independent shops across the city as well as a handful of stores in Frome, some 25 miles away. The business was set up to support the local community and has so far issued about £200,000 in value across 20,000 cards since it was established two and a half years ago, said Perez., is going to be promotional since it goes on to repeat company services; that certainly isn't independent since a news publication would never care about promoting they have no company ownership of. If each paragraph begins with a "He said, He said, they said, company said", that is not independent as quoted in GNG's "independent of the subject". SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftified. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 12:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar)[edit]

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar) (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 such legislation or legislative bill in fact currently exists either in the United Kingdom or in Gibraltar. An article created (for a topic) before the fact, it would seem; and it would also seem that the creator might not be British (as a Brit) or British (a Brit, from being a Gibraltarian), might perhaps have a somewhat imperfect proficiency and command of the English language, and might in fact have a limited grasp of how legislation is actually made in the respective legislatures, either in the United Kingdom or in Gibraltar, the actual legislative competence of the Gibraltar legislature (as the legislature of one of the British Overseas Territories (BOTs), as Gibraltar is), British (United Kingdom) law (especially in relation to the EC/EEC/EU/EEA or to the BOTs, in particular, the European Communities Act 1972), Gibraltar law, or the politics of Gibraltar (or comparable [British] Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey)) generally. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. If you'd bothered to look at the source cited in the article, this is a bill that has been announced by Gibraltar's chief minister. As for whether Gibraltarian laws use their coat of arms, you may wish to check European Union (Referendum) Act 2016 (Gibraltar), and the official Gibraltarian Laws website. Finally, I'm not going to lower myself to your attempts at violating WP:PERSONAL. --RaviC (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The English in the article is fine, and as far as I can see from the edit history, always has been. 87.102.116.36, might be a good idea to revisit WP:DONTBITE, as we all have bad days sometimes. Matt's talk 21:06, 25 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. Although some argument was made towards WP:TOOSOON, general opinion is that the book passes WP:GNG through sustained news coverage. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons To Vote For Democrats[edit]

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

This is an old joke, which has been tried too many times, see

.....all blank books. And all, AFAIK, self published. Wikipedia doesn't need to put up with every silly joke, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom fails to exhibit evidence of WP:BEFORE. Nom fails to provide a policy-based reason for deletion. Personal opinions are neither a valid reason for bringing an articl eto AFD, nor is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of the coverage "non-trivial" though? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. All independent of the published. And there's more - this is from a quick search (cutting out instances in which the Author was interviewed by the publication).Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a WP:OR claim. This book has an ISBN (978-1-543-02497-5), pages (266) of which some are Intentionally blank page that are used in most books to some degree, and 1235 words ([11]) - which is more than books such as The Very Hungry Caterpillar (which is 32 pages and 224 words per [12]). It is described by its author as a book, and is sold as a book. And finally multiple WP:RS refer to it as a book: [13][14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (this is a far from complete list - however it shows major RSes referring to it as a book). We are supposed to follow the sources, not make independent judgements based on our POV regarding the nature of objects - if multiple RS say X is a Y, then we should follow said classification (regardless, it also passed on GNG - coverage pre-dates presidential endorsement and post-dates as well and is sustained).Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC) And I'll add, we recognize other blank works: e.g. music: 4′33″ visual arts: White on White, Monochrome painting.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you reckon it a book, a pamphlet, a joke, concrete poetry, or a work of conceptual art, the notability requirements are similar - in-depth coverage, analysis, or reviews. I'm not sure any of the articles you cite can be termed in-depth coverage of the book itself, whereas Cage's 4'33" has a considerable body of critical analysis. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- lots of trivial coverage: short articles, brief mentions in longer articles. WP:BK is specifically asking for "non-trivial" coverage. The very nature of this book makes it difficult for any coverage of it to ever be non-trivial unless it becomes a Pokemon-style phenomenon. A Traintalk 08:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions aside whether the book is trivial and whether coverage of a triviality may be non-trivial, these are examples (and there are more) of non-trivial coverage: [25], [26], [27].Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:A Train, Please note that other editors, including Icewhiz, Czar, Cllgbksr, and I have (above) each in turn also wanted to be satisfied that there has been WP:SIGCOV. Each of us looked for and found sources that satisfy with their depth and intellectual gravitas. I both create pages about books and edit at AFD on books and writers, and with multiple, formal book reviews and in-depth articles in major publications this book simply flies past Criterion # 1 in WP:BOOKCRIT - even though it is, of course, a political prank not unlike the Sokal affair.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 26 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. The issue is whether this book (whatever its merits may be) is notable as measured by its coverage in reliable third-party sources. There is no clear consensus here, although a majority of opinions would keep the article. The article can be renominated after some time when the lasting importance of the book, if any, can be better assessed.  Sandstein  10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A History of the Palestinian People[edit]

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

This is an old joke, which has been tried many times before, see

.....all blank books. And all, AFAIK, self published. Wikipedia doesn't need to put up with every silly joke, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom fails to exhibit evidence of WP:BEFORE. Nom fails to provide a policy-based reason for deletion. Personal opinions are neither a valid reason for bringing an articl eto AFD, nor is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Being a self-published book does not correlate with notability - but nor does it preclude notability. This particular book was covered in-depth (with lengthly analysis on the merit of the claim (either agreeing or disagreeing) with some outliers going as far as to call it "History of the Palestinian People is explicitly intended to reinforce the dehumanization of an entire people in order to grease the machinery of subjugation and ethnic cleansing" [28])) - by over 20 different sources independent of the author/publisher (and possibly more) - clearly surpassing the requirement in WP:BK(1).
  • 2. Coverage is sustained - persisting from immediately following publication to this week (e.g. Bosnian newspaper [29], Knesset speech [30] [31]) - calling SUSTAINED here amounts to saying articles can't be made on new books. SUSTAINED isn't a criteria for WP:BK.
  • 3. Banning from Amazon (B&N may be due to print run selling out - it is not clear this was actually banned there) - following a wide pro-Palestinian campaign to ban (which included claims that an empty book is a call for ethnic cleansing)- only confers notability, to wit the coverage in WP:RS following the banning increased significantly (and on a personal level - got me interested).
  • 4. Prank? Much of the coverage in WP:RS has taken this book seriously. Dead serious - including said claims that this is a call for dehumanization/ethnic cleansing/subjugation, as well as in-depth analysis of the merits of the claim that there is no Palestinian people or Palestinian history.Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Wire says the book has been "banned" by Barnes & Noble,[32] and the B&N website no longer has a page for the book, so clearly it's been delisted by them. As for sustained coverage - the book basically got a few gleeful endorses from pro-Israel websites when first published and a couple of disapproving mentions on pro-Palestinian media, then got a second blip of coverage about a week later due to it being delisted on Amazon. That hardly qualifies as sustained in my book. Who will care about this book six months from now? Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. I've seen the oneliner (at the end of a substansive article) in dailywire (and reffed it in the article) - still not sure (from what I see from other sources) that it actually was banned in B&N and not end of print run - but it doesn't really matter either way until it gets real coverage regarding B&N issues (I will note that if it was actually banned - this increases significance).
2. Coverage: A. The book got enraged counter-responses after publication (in addition to endorsements) + calls for action against Amazon. B. Additional coverage after banning (late June). C. Trickling coverage in July from several sources (including some that are in-depth analysis of the claim) - [33] [34] [35] [36]. D. Coverage following Hotovely's speech with the book: [37] [38] (mondoweiss has an in-depth counter response, others really just carry what she said - a number of these (in Hebrew & English )). So that's 4 distinct phases of coverage in approx. a month or so - which is definitely WP:SIGCOV. The book definitely has, if we're looking at WP:BK(1) more than two in-depth reviews.
3. Who will care six months from now? As the book has been called on the one hand "History of the Palestinian People is explicitly intended to reinforce the dehumanization of an entire people in order to grease the machinery of subjugation and ethnic cleansing", and on the other hand we have a freedom of speech / commercial dispute / taking sides on politics by Amazon - we will probably see more coverage and mentions in the coming months (as an example for a call for ethnic cleansing, hypocrisy calls regarding other amazon sales, and probably legal action vs. Amazon (seems there is also a question of proceeds)). Frankly - if it wasn't banned and if pro-Palestinian/liberal outlets had chosen to ignore it at the time - I wouldn't have written an article (I started on 27 June - after the ban and coverage wave following it, though I was aware of the book from the initial coverage wave) and it would've been less notable (maybe still notable, maybe not). The banning/censorship + extremely detailed responses (positive & negative) to the thesis laid in the book (in a blunt fashion) - is what really makes this notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite disturbing that you would describe a collection of blank pages as a "thesis". Other than that, it's hyperbolic to describe what happened to the book as a "ban", or "censorship" - it's simply been delisted by the major online sellers. As for the responses, they have mostly addressed themselves to the topic of what might be called "Palestinian denialism" rather than the book itself, which is just treated as the latest example of the phenomenon - what, after all, can be said about an empty book? As Colapeninsula noted above, there is a case to be made for an article on the broader topic, but hardly I think on one particular example of it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voll has said he looked for sources for Palestinian existence prior to the modern time - and found none - thus his thesis (in the sense of a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.) is that there is no history - and his blunt presentation of said thesis, offensive to some, and even described as as a means for "subjugation and ethnic cleansing" - is an empty tome. This is a serious claim - perhaps wrong and offensive - but serious. I stick to the sources - for instance professor Steven Weitzman treats Voll's thesis in one breath with Sand's: In one chapter, I look at a book entitled The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand which provoked controversy a few years ago because of its critique of Zionism. Sand makes his argument against Israel by trying to disprove the origin story which he believes underpins Zionism’s claim to the land of Canaan and justifies Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. I subject Sand’s approach to critique, but it should be noted that the right has produced its own share of origin stories that can be critiqued on the same grounds. I just read a report about a book called A History of the Palestinian People that was a best-seller on Amazon last week before it was removed from the site. What was offensive about the book is that it is completely blank, the author’s way of arguing that the Palestinians are not a real people and have no real history—an argument that other scholars have made in more conventional ways. This is Sand’s argument in reverse, applied to the Palestinians instead of the Jews, and it is wrong for very similar methodological and historical reasons even though it is coming from the other side of the political spectrum and makes its argument in a different way.. The book hasn't been "simply delisted" - it was banned for sale on Amazon, which may be described as a "common utility" due its monopolistic or near-monopolistic status (not my words: [39], [40] - One might further argue that whereas a private, independent bookseller with a specific inventory must decide which books fit the shop’s criteria and deserve to occupy shelf space, Amazon is in reality a common utility, a portal for anything published and available.). The Amazon ban followed an activist campaign to ban the book (on and off the Amazon site, [41]). All this while Amazon continues to sell, as has been noted by some sources, books and merchandise calling for the genocide of Jews or the erasure of Israel. The book is notable - as it meets WP:BK(1) and WP:GNG. While "Historicity of the Palestinian people" might be notable in and of itself - so is this book due so coverage in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still not persuaded. But I think I've made the points I wanted to make, so I will endeavour at this point to step aside and let others have their say. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think a book that was on sale for barely a week can be described as a best-seller. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here: [42] is a gNews search on "A history of the Palestinian Poeple" + bestseller. Gato, AFD is about sources, not opinions. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was reportedly listed as a bestseller on Amazon in a couple of narrow categories for the few days it was on sale there, which would not be difficult to achieve over such a short timespan. However, that has no relevance here, since WP:BK states that Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two responses from you to me, two comments on contributor. Thank you for reminding me why I rarely bother contributing in this topic area. As for BLUDGEON - not even close, I have responded to exactly one !vote on this page, all my other posts have been in response to posts addressed to me - and I already withdrew from the exchange with my principal interlocutor, no prompting required. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman: Funnily, that's not how you saw it in the AfD I referenced above. Please tell me about the lasting impact of Khizr and Ghazala Khan. So is it deletion-worthy when the subject criticizes the Left but keep-worthy when it criticizes the Right? Your stance seems hypocritical to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still consider Khizr and Ghazala Khan to be a notable topic. Any editor is welcome to test the consensus by renominating the article; perhaps it has changed. The event we are dealing with in this article is an insignificant publicity stunt, IMO. Hence my vote for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Redirect Someone should create an article about all these blank page books and this can redirect to that. 16:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgolden (talk • contribs)

I don't know why it wasn't signed... I added the four tildes. Anyway, I'd like to add that these books are not all *individually* noteworthy. Mgolden (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC) The user cannot participate in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30--Shrike (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all are notable. This particular book, per the sourcing in the article, is.Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 23 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 All Media Network#AllGame. It seems like very few people want to keep the article as-is (and that person endorses a merger as well) but only one person wants to explicitly delete, most opinions are for redirecting with one for merge.Thus we shall redirect with people free to copy any worthwhile content over, using the most commonly cited redirect target Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AllGame[edit]

AllGame (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)

(Defunct company) Collectively created to build a group corporate spam along with group company. All Media Network. Non-notable. only blatant promotion. Same type of content is used. Either merge into one, and as sold by TiVo Corporation (notable company) to make one articles. all these clusters of companies does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. Light2021 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a great article, no, but it is a plausible search term. And I don't believe the redirect target is likely to actually be deleted. Not a great nom there. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All Media Network. Site on its own is not notable, but content should be moved as it has a lot of incoming links and is used as a reliable source. People will wonder what this is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 26 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. The case in favour of the topic being notable is compelling enough; there may be a case for a merger which should be discussed on the talk page. Concerns about promotional content here merit a maintenance tag or a cleanup, not deletion per the discussion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AllMovie[edit]

AllMovie (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)

Collectively created to build a group corporate spam along with group company. All Media Network. Non-notable. only blatant promotion. Light2021 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Regan[edit]

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

PROD was contested. Non-notable artist created by a declared paid editing account with the intention of promoting the artist. Clear COI and fails both points of WP:N. The subject does not meet GNG and is excluded as promotional content under WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)*[reply]

Carl Burnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frank Enea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and in any case there is no indication that it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG anyways. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:13, 20 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) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 399 (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
New York State Route 399 (disambiguation) (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)

Disambiguation not required per WP:2DABS. Primary topic has hatnote to only other use. Not controversial, but previously nominated for AfD in 2009, result no consensus. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 19 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. Nobody who expressed an opinion thought the article would be appropriate to keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleTrail[edit]

PurpleTrail (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 company exist only for its profile, Corporate Spam/ Directory. Light2021 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I Withdrew my delete recommendation as I could find some small coverage in three books and another article by PC Magazine. It is not enough for me to change to a "keep" yet unless more sources are found. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamyshade (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this and reviewing the article history, I've updated my vote to delete - there's just not enough RS available, and there's only one major contributor who likely had a COI (based on the name and other edits), without significant additional edits, and the article is an orphan. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:14, 25 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 Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 18:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omniconvert[edit]

Omniconvert (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. No repeated coverage to establish any notability. Writing purpose is promotion and advertorials. reads like a brochure or corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 19 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) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympusat[edit]

Olympusat (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)

Unnecessary division page of a company. Long list of channels presented as directory. References need to be added. Or simply need to be merged with another notable channels. Parent company page does not exist. Light2021 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamyshade (talk) 20:03, 23 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) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Sol[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/director fails WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE done only supporting non-notable roles no secondary sources only passing mentions for now it looks WP:TOSOON.  FITINDIA  06:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The enormous number of sources presented demonstrate clear notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josedlal101 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Josedla1101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 9 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eview 360[edit]

Eview 360 (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. Blatant Promotions. Reads like a company brochure. Corporate Spam. Light2021 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:47, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ayub (mathematician)[edit]

Muhammad Ayub (mathematician) (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:NPROF. Awards not confirmed in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Winter Youth Olympics[edit]

2025 Winter Youth Olympics (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 event has not been confirmed as happening by the IOC. Plus the article is made up of original research right now... meaning its unnecessary to have the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:12, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mzansi Hive[edit]

Mzansi Hive (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 see no indication of notability MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 19 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 Khadr family. Nobody wants to keep the article but most opinions are for a redirect so going for this. A merger is also proposed but without explanation as to what should be merged; editors are free to copy content over following the usual procedure Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkareem Khadr[edit]

Abdulkareem Khadr (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)

It's sad that he was injured, but that does not make him notable for WP. Other than that, I can't see why he would warrant an article, other than perhaps being related to some people ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator clearly failed to do WP:BEFORE. The article is missing important information about Khadr that now makes him notable. About a week ago, Khadr received a reported 8 million dollar settlement from Canadian president Trudeau because Khadr claimed he was tortured. As a result, Khadr has received substantial global news coverage [45], [46], and [47] are just some examples. Kges1901 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC) I withdraw my !vote because I didn't realize that the article wasn't about Omar Khadr but about his relative. Kges1901 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Khadr family. This also goes for all Khadrs other than Omar: Ahmed Khadr, Maha el-Samnah, Zaynab Khadr, Abdullah Khadr, Abdurahman Khadr. Only Ahmed and Abdullah might be notable on their own. Madg2011 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In Google, all I got was the page being nominated; In Nerwspapers, I got nothing; In Books, the top three returns were "books" produced by printing WP pages.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:04, 19 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 Khadr family. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 12:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaynab Khadr[edit]

Zaynab Khadr (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)

Unclear how this would meet notability standards. Being the sister/daughter of somewhat notable people does not make you notable. I cannot imagine why she would warrant an article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumethee Khokpho[edit]

Sumethee Khokpho (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 19 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. Claims that reliable, independent sources exist have been sufficiently refuted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Daley (entrepreneur)[edit]

Mark Daley (entrepreneur) (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:BIO and WP:GNG. Although the article has many references. It appears to be an attempt of reference bombing to hide the notability of subject . Razer(talk) 12:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a hard time finding any reliable source which mentions that the subject is the founder of One Iowa. The subject is not listed on the board of directors page 1 at One Iowa website and Wikipedia article on One Iowa also does not mention anywhere that Mark Daley founded the organization. Razer(talk) 07:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could provide a link to the Wikipedia notability guideline you think founding One Iowa or being "recognized by United Nations" (whatever that means) meets. He is not, in fact, discussed with the significant depth the GNG requires, and all the sources are most certainly NOT "mainstream media." I strongly recommend you look over the relevant guidelines for notability and the reliability of sources. Ravenswing 13:40, 20 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catioo[edit]

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

Technically ineligible for PROD as it was included in a bundled nom of non-notable football clubs nearly 10 years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis.

I can't find any sources that would indicate this club even exists, let alone passes WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:59, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Iervolino[edit]

Andrea Iervolino (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 enough there to determine notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was one story in a Canadian national newspaper but that's insufficient for an entire bio here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 26 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. I am fairly sure that we don't have a "always keep secondary school articles" guideline or policy, but if sources are presented and go uncontested... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Bartók Music High School[edit]

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

While the notability criteria for schools is incredibly lax, a Google search shows few reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. The article is written in a promotional tone and is riddled with WP:PEACOCK terms, bordering on G11 material. TL;DR: delete per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 11:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 19 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 deletion (A7). (((non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SBG Business Advisors (Chartered Accountant Services)[edit]

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

This is not a article, It's a kidding Builder8360 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 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 general agreement was that the sources presented by Cunard amounted to trivial passing mentions and were insufficient to demonstrate notability for a standalone article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meli Melo Artists Alliance[edit]

Meli Melo Artists Alliance (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 subject of the article is essentially the same as the recently-deleted article Meli Melo Limited. The same deletion rationale applies here - the subject is not notable; Hong Kong has countless "art jamming" businesses and extracurricular art studios just like this one, and an internet search does not turn up in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • we shouldn't mistake them as otherwise simply because CNN aired them, because WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. – a CNN International feature about the subject clearly establishes notability. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to CNN or television features that are not prompted by breaking news.

    The quotes about Betty Cheung Yee-wan are typical writing for reviews or features about artists or architects and does not detract from the sources' independence.

    Cunard (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...where Meli Melo Limited claims on its website to have created art jamming..." Etc.
Wikipedia does not exist to republish claims of non notable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I googled Meli Melo Artists Alliance CNN and nothing related to the group came up. If it was a notable segment, it would be online somewhere. While the publications/sites they appeared in are certainly notable, the coverage they got from them does not itself seem notable. If they are indeed gone that means we shouldn't expect to see any new coverage either. Compare to Melkweg - a similar seeming artists' collective/destination location that actually doesn't even have any sources, for which I've flagged it. I happen to have been there and know it's a very notable destination and a city landmark. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN International feature is from 2001. There is no requirement that a television feature must be notable to be usable as a source for establishing notability. Meli Melo Artists Alliance is notable for the significant coverage it has received in international reputable sources like CNN International and Telecinco and Hong Kong sources like South China Morning Post and Headline Daily. I agree that Melkweg is notable. But so is Meli Melo Artists Alliance.

Cunard (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing it. If you feel strongly enough, I recommend you put the info and sources into the article, so it can be judged in the proper format. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am disinclined from spending time improving an article that can be deleted at AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do exactly that. I may still lose but feel I tried. See ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core77. You are an experienced editor and certainly don't need anyone telling you how to do things, but I look at all the time you spent coming up with the info on the talk page, when I think it would be more effective adding it to the article space. I saw a closed AfD for an article called Upay India, and then editor MrMagoo found many sources and put links to them on the talk page, but the article was deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayU India I requested to have the content sent to me so I could take a shot at improving it with MrMagoo's sources. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I try to minimize losing my content work to deletion because it'd be a waste of my limited time. I've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core77 with sources I have found. I wish you the best of luck in recreating PayU India with MrMagoo's sources. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's good info you found. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss the sources mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin – I want to point out that this user has an intense grudge against me (note all the frivolous warning templates he/she has put on my talk page). Citobun (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a different opinion on the article, I don't hold a grudge against you, please relax. STSC (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:26, 19 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) Greenbörg (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nassar Ikram[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. I failed to verify per WP:V in reliable sources per WP:RS. Best, It should be redirected to Pakistan Navy Engineering College. Greenbörg (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Apnagm: Please do not copy paste my comments. --Saqib (talk) 08:45, 20 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. as a copyright violation. As stated below, the subject could be notable enough for an article, but the article will have to be rewritten. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asad aslam khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. I failed to verify per WP:V in reliable sources per WP:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: He looks-like a reciptent of Sitara-i-Imtiaz per his article. Can you provide a source for it? Greenbörg (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True indeed [48]. hence strike down my delete vote and suggest we should Week keep this. And I also found this bio is copyvio of [49] so it should be first speedy deleted and then re-created from scratch. --Saqib (talk) 12:37, 20 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 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Dredd: Mega-City One[edit]

Judge Dredd: Mega-City One (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)

Potential TV show, still in development, not yet in production or attached to a broadcaster. Creating an article now is jumping the gun. Lots of shows don't make it out of development. WP:TVSHOW: "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network. A mere announcement that a pilot is in development may be noted in the Wikipedia articles about its creators, writers or confirmed cast members, but absent significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence, the announcement itself is not sufficient basis for a standalone article about the pilot." Nicknack009 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's on IMDB. "Big names are involved" is not true, though - there are no names at all attached.
The show has not even gone into production yet. Per Wikipedia policy, it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article until it's actually scheduled. I don't see why there's any need for more comments. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:43, 20 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) 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Market7[edit]

Market7 (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)

typical press coverage, nothing significant about it to wrote on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 11 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, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Requirements Medical[edit]

Matrix Requirements Medical (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)

nominating for AfD as declined for Speedy. Non-notable. exist only to promote online. Light2021 (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 12 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, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Habib[edit]

Nasir Habib (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) 09:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:32, 19 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. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romania at major beauty pageants[edit]

Romania at major beauty pageants (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)

Consistent with the test case here this page should be deleted as fancruft and a non-notable topic. There are no sources discussing the topic of Romania at major beauty pageants. Further, defining "major" is somewhat arbitrary. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 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 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

((Countries at major beauty pageants))

Ajf773 (talk) 01:56, 25 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. Only one WP:PERNOM !vote after two relists. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo at major beauty pageants[edit]

Kosovo at major beauty pageants (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)

Consistent with the test case here [50] this page should be deleted as fancruft and a non-notable topic. There are no sources discussing the topic of Kosovo at major beauty pageants. In fact, according to this page the country has never had anyone at one of the events. Further, defining "major" is somewhat arbitrary. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:31, 19 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 09:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzfeezy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jazzfeezy (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)

It continues to fail at a major point of WP:Reference and WP:MUSICBIO. DBrown SPS (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 9 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:30, 19 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. "He's notable!" "No he isn't!" "Yes he is!" "No he isn't!" "There are lots of sources!" "No they're not!" "I'm sorry, is this the five minute argument or the full half-hour?"..... the conversation veered right away from discussing the notability of Gary Renard and into bickering about canvassing during the past week, so there was no advancement on the lack of consensus observed at the final relist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Renard[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gary Renard (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:AUTHOR does not quite seem to be met here. Previous discussions mentioned the Amazon book-selling rank which I don't think is a good metric at all. Yes, he is cited by other (even notable) ACIM people, but being cited does not notability make. We need to decide whether Renard is notable as a person. From what I can gather from the sources used in the article and those I've looked, he is not. He's just another person in the ACIM community.

I think he falls below the notability threshold whereas the authors of the book itself and other more WP:CELEBRITY-type people (Wayne Dyer, for example) fall above the line more clearly. jps (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking the liberty of pasting below a comment by GreenC from the previous AfD, minus the !vote:
Above comment by GreenC on 30 December 2014 from the previous AfD: [57]. copied and posted here by Softlavender (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to consider the question as to whether Renard as a person is worthy of a WP:FRINGEBLP. To that end, I find very little in the way of sources about him that extend beyond the ACIM fringe community. Yeah, he is quoted from time to time by fellow believers, but I do not find sources that rise to the level of WP:FRIND notice that we require. When you only have believers writing about you, that means that we do not have the sources necessary to develop an encyclopedia article on the subject while maintaining both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (this is why WP:FRINGEBLP exists). The problem in fringe communities is that source churn can easily make it appear as though someone is "recognized" or "highly cited" when really it's just the believers preaching amongst themselves. Without proper contextualization that independent sources provides, it is impossible to write a WP:NPOV article on a person that hasn't been noticed outside the fringe community. If you can find someone who is not an ACIM devotee who has written about Renard as a person, please let me know. But so far, I've not found any sources that rise to that level. jps (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is an odd situation, I would say that if he is a major figure in the movement, then yes that notability should count (such as the head of the movement or it's leading spokesman), but just being part of it, no that would not be enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the ongoing questions we've had in issues such as this is who counts as a notable figure in a movement? My general answer (in terms of WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:FRIND) is that in order to be considered notable within the movement someone from outside of the movement needs to have noticed you. Thus, we have Helen Schucman, William Thetford, and Marianne Williamson whose notability is attested to be outside sources. Renard, on the other hand, seems to only have been quoted (and in some of the above citation, only in minimal ways) by other ACIM adherents. jps (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I think that I'll still avoid !voting as I'm really unsure. I found more hits for Renard than for Schucman, but could not take the time to evaluate results and properly evaluate why. —PaleoNeonate - 10:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Schucman would pass WP:AUTHOR whereas I do not believe Renard does. jps (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Renard meets #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As intimated above, I disagree. The "peers" or "successors" have to align with WP:FRIND and the "major work" is number 12 on Amazon which does not, to me, indicate "major work" if for no other reason than it doesn't tend to generate biographical material when you don't break top ten. jps (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up rules and conditions and guidelines and standards and qualifications that don't exist. "Peers or successors" would obviously be peers (fellow writers) on ACIM or new thought, and it has already been noted here that he has had at least three books written entirely about his books, is quoted extensively in at least three books by Wayne Dyer [58], [59], [60], and is quoted and/or mentioned extensively in at least 80 other books. All of those meet #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Thought is a collection of loosely affiliated quasi-religious beliefs. What distinguishes believers in New Thought is their uncritical acceptance of fringe claims or their religious community. Now, it is clear that Renard is not affiliated with Unity Church or anything like that, so we're left with a community of WP:FRINGE advocates. That's why we look at what it takes to make a fringe theory notable. In this case, we would look for notice of Renard's ideas by independent sources. That's a fundamental test for Wikipedia and not made up by me. jps (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are making up notability rules and conditions and guidelines and standards and qualifications that do not exist. (If they exist, please quote the wording of them directly.) As I've demonstrated several times, he easily meets #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGEBLP:

There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.

The link to "notability of fringe theories themselves" is to the following section:

For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.

Emphasis mine. jps (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meets WP:FRINGEBLP, as well as easily meeting #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. Is not a "topic"; A Course in Miracles is a topic and already has considerable coverage on Wikipedia (including a navbox and a Category), as does New Thought. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're entering WP:IDHT territory. No one said that ACIM or New Thought is not a topic on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second quotation above is about topics, not people/authors. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the first quotation is provided. jps (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is neither a fringe theory nor a topic, so the second quotation does not apply. The subject is an author on a topic(s) which already have considerable coverage on Wikipedia (including navboxes and Categories). Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we've reached WP:IDHT territory. I'll let others evaluate whether a section written about "treatment of living persons" is about living people or not. jps (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the second quotation nor the part of it you bolded is about "treatment of living persons", it is from WP:NFRINGE. And even beyond that, I have already established several times that the topic(s) the subject writes about already have considerable coverage on Wikipedia, including navboxes and Categories. Softlavender (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP is a topic. It is a specific subset of topics in which the topic is a person. NFRINGE applies to all topics, not just to all non-BLP topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, a person (BLP) is an article subject. A fringe theory "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)" is a topic. A person is not a theory, and WP:NFRINGE does not mention persons, and specifically defines the parameters of that guideline as "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)" [61]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Topic - Dictionary.com. You're drawing a false distinction. A topic is a subject in the context of an encyclopedia article, and it seems quite apparent to myself (and apparently, to jps) not only that the quoted section applies, but why it applies. There are countless millions of individuals who are notable within a fringe group, and who also lack WP articles because they are not notable outside the group, and that is as it should be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm quoting the actual guideline, "(a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)", and distinguishing between Wikipedia guidelines for persons and Wikipedia guidelines for non-persons. If you want to quote a Wikipedia guideline for persons, please do, and please quote directly. Softlavender (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An actual guideline, pertaining specifically to BLP's and saying exactly the same thing was the first quote jps provided. Even if I'm entirely wrong (which I'm not, but for argumentation's sake, let's assume I am), your position is still in opposition to policy. So, you asked for a policy quote? Here goes: Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner.... (emphasis added) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He turns up plenty of results in Google, the problem is they are not RS, care to link to a couple of RS?Slatersteven (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has written three books and a fourth is already listed on Amazon. He gets 77,700 Google web hits and 3,270 Google Books hits. He is quoted or mentioned at length in well over 80 other books (that was the case in 2014; at this point it could be well over 100), including at least three by Wayne Dyer. He easily meets #1 and #3 of WP:AUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, did not know that. -- GreenC 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the source itself directly asserts notability (as I just posted above), it is sourced ie. backed up. -- GreenC 16:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a single assertion of notability, even in a reliable source, establishes significant coverage. And of course, that source is hardly reliable, else we'd be faced with the prospect of treating the author's claims of being the reincarnation of Jude, brother of Jesus with credulity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think the source isn't reliable? Did you even read it? It's extremely critical of the guy outright calling him a liar and fraud. -Do you disagree with the source? - GreenC 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the author claims to be the reincarnation of Jude, brother of Jesus is, for me at least, a red flag of unreliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm .. I'm not too concerned about his religious beliefs (Pope thinks he is God's sole contact on earth and the Dalai Lama thinks he is reincarnation of himself) - but he is connected to the Course in Miracles so it weakens it as an internal dispute and reduces notability. Plus the problem of vanity press noted by jps. -- GreenC 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a belief in reincarnation or even in certain particulars about one's past lives does not disqualify an author from being an RS (else we'd have to eliminate a lot of authors of non-Abrahamic religions), but when those beliefs form the basis for numerous claims of fact (as they do in this book), I'm inclined to subject those beliefs to more scrutiny. The author supposedly has a degree in... something... and taught... some subject... so I suppose if those claims were substantiated, we could use works by him as an RS on the subject of whatever his field is. But I wouldn't ever use this work to make factual claims about a fellow (competing) new-age guru, given the inherent unreliability of statements made in the context of a fringe field. Similarly, I would happily quote Lee Smolin for a number of claims of fact about physics, but I'd never use him as a source for claims about the character or honesty of physicists who argue against Loop quantum gravity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The condition of a Wikipedia article has no bearing on its notability. If you would like to add to the article, by all means do. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, and WP:SOFIXIT. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that none of these sources really can be used. As have others. And there is no evidence that the "keepers" think it is actually possible to write the article on the basis of mention in these 80 books. Many of them are so trivial mentions as to be entirely useless. jps (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they can be used; they are independent of the subject. And obviously you have not looked through all 80+ books. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONUS is on you to identify an independent reliable source on which we can base the article. So far, all you do is trumpet Wayne Dyer who himself admits in the very quotes you provide to be a partisan in championing Gary Renard. That's not an WP:Independent source. I did slog through a number of the books in your "80+" list, but like many others commenting here found absolutely nothing that rose to the level of independence we would require to write a neutral article. Many of the sources were totally unusable (such as the one identified by GreenC which is published by a vanity publisher). If you might find a source that wasn't written about an ACIM acolyte that could attest to the notability of this character, you would do your cause great justice. But, for now, I see a lot of repetitive complaints and little actionable substance. If you cannot put up evidence better than what you have presented, I don't think you've successfully made your case. jps (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no dog in this fight -- I'm commenting as a neutral observer who had never heard of this guy before today. I understand that when an article is poorly written, but has good, eventually sourceable content in it, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. But if there are no reliable, third-party, published sources, and no realistic prospect of finding any - as some have argued, above - it may well be best to delete it. A reasonable middle ground might be to stub and tag it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He meets meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. At least three books have been written entirely about his books ([63], [64], [65]) and at least 80+ books mention or quote him prominently ([66]), including Understanding A Course in Miracles: The History, Message, and Legacy of a Spiritual Path for Today and at least three books by Wayne Dyer. He has been featured in seven documentary films, and his books have been translated into 22 languages. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I loathe to relist a discussion with so many comments but despite the wealth of comments, there is still no clear consensus, so maybe another week might change that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:29, 19 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 Atlassian, as the relevant merge has been performed already. The editors arguing for deletion have not made a persuasive case against a redirect, which are WP:CHEAP after all. A Traintalk 09:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hall.com[edit]

Hall.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)

non significant product. Nothing on media except typical press coverage. Speedy delete material. Light2021 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:06, 19 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Social Equity Institute[edit]

Melbourne Social Equity Institute (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)

Institute within a university. Such institutes are almost never considered notable here, unless they are world famous. There is no indication that this one is. Every reference is from their own web page, and that's where this material belongs. Possibly this is best considered a G11 speedy DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for DrStrauss, DGG, K.e.coffman, LibStar. So there is not sufficient secondary sources here to satisfy WP:NEXIST ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the most important reason, as I said, is that the article was entirely promotional. It had no sources except from the school itself, all subpages of its own web site; the fact that others exist but that they did not use them indicates their purpose: it was to reprint a summary of their website on Wikipedia. That is advertising. Articles that are entirely advertising should be deleted, unless they are important enough for someone to rescue. The only way we can tell in a discussion if someone will rescue them is if they are improved during the discussion. In the 12 days this article has been at AfD nobody has improved it. The conclusion of these syllogisms is thus that the article should not remain in Wikipedia. Nor should it remain in Draft. It might get improved there, but it is pure advertising, and we do not do that in draft space either (and we unfortunately know that relatively few articles do get improved there). So I challenge anyone who thinks there are sources for a NPOV article: write one. (I've followed my own rule, and improved many articles in this manner when they are in my field and sufficiently important. When I first came here I thought I could do it very often, but if I do it properly rather than minimally I only have time for one or two a week.) DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG. I can see your point, but what it really means is that something is effectively only notable at AfD if it meets GNG and someone has the time and interest at the time of AfD to fix it and is aware of it at the time. This might leave a lot of notable topics in severe danger just because an interested editor is not around and/or engaged at the time. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was at that point in my comment talking only about articles characterized by thoroughgoing promotionalism. There is no point leaving in the encyclopedia articles that are essentially advocacy or advertising in the hope they will be rewritten. Sometimes there are other techniques, such as stubbification, but then someone needs to watch that the material not be restored. I've never used this argument for notability, where I agree with you that the probability of sources can often be sufficient reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:08, 19 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) Lourdes 05:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Katsyv[edit]

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

Not notable businessman Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:20, 19 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.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International eGames Committee[edit]

International eGames Committee (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)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PuraVida19 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the rationale is, but I'm assuming the issue is notability. The article does need some help. The International Business Times article implying British government backing (and this piece saying a government secretary is involved) is about as close as this gets to notability. Other coverage seems to help suggest the fact that this organization might need more time to cook. I'm going to say weak delete or redirect to eGames (eSports), which gets stronger if the current article is taken into account. Raymie (t • c) 07:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:33, 19 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) Greenbörg (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Hasan (Pakistani journalist)[edit]

Mehdi Hasan (Pakistani journalist) (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 WP:RS for this Mehdi Hasan to verify her self-promotional biography per WP:V. Many things written are per WP:OR. No notable award, he has done nothing special. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Masooda Bano (25 April 2012). Breakdown in Pakistan: How Aid Is Eroding Institutions for Collective Action. Stanford University Press. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-0-8047-8184-8.
Since this bio was created by a SPA [75]. i thought it could be an autobio. since he is a journalist, i was looking for him in Pakistani newspapers but didn't find anything of significant, except few articles which namechecking him. if we need to compile his bio , we will need some published RS. --Saqib (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then please search harder. The faculty CV is a good starting point, and I don't see a reason to distrust it, and my findings of video interviews, speeches and talk shows (check [76]) suggest that he's a rather big academic name and public speaker. However, 1) most of his career spans 1970s and 1980s, so sources could be offline 2) his name is ambiguous with another famous singer and a famous journalist, 3) there is possibly a significant body of material in Urdu. But even what I collected as a total outsider pretty much paints the picture of a renowned scholar and political analyst. Few additional searches: Books (mostly by him), HRCP. No such user (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, hence I strike down my deletion note. --Saqib (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:33, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TEAMS Design[edit]

TEAMS Design (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 Promotions. COI. Light2021 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 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 08:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:31, 19 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 American College of Rheumatology. With history left in place for merging purposes. SoWhy 09:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals[edit]

Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (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 a seperate organisation. Should be merged with American College of Rheumatology of which it is a part Rathfelder (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:31, 19 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. Lots of comments but no one actually taking any positions on the article. A Traintalk 09:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

WittyFeed[edit]

WittyFeed (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)

Bringing this here as it passed AfC and has had at least one speedy declined before the one I just declined. Feel like it needs a broader discussion than simply a CSD. Officially neutral. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion disc*Commentussions. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is suggesting you did anything wrong in approving this article. The article was reasonable. It's simply a question of what to do with it know that we know it was created by a sock of a blocked editor, and, even worse, apparently by an undisclosed paid edit. Meters (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:31, 19 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 09:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis MacDonald[edit]

Travis MacDonald (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 significant awards, no critical discussions of his work, no works in major museums. Fails WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:42, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:30, 19 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 09:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Hipwell (producer)[edit]

John Hipwell (producer) (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 advertorially toned page on an unremarkable producer. Significant RS coverage not found. Article created by Special:Contributions/Sandynguyen96 with no other contributions outside this topic. Article copy includes: "He has delivered short films for various public and private corporations including Hertz, Motorola, Mobil and Energy Victoria!" highlighting how few the accomplishments are. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:29, 19 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 inherent notability from winning awards was challenged, and no further sources were put forward. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Rhoades[edit]

Lana Rhoades (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 Procedural Nomination. I am totally neutral in this and my nominating the article for deletion is not to be seen as a vote for deletion. Per previous discussion at Talk:Lana Rhoades, it would be helpful if editors were to vote to either Keep the article, or Redirect it to List of Penthouse Pets. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was previously involved in cheerleading and gymnastics.[2][3] She has also mentioned in interviews that she loves baking, especially cupcakes.[4][3]"
A techical SNG pass is not a replacement for having independent reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winning porn awards is not enough when zero reliable sources take note of it. Think it may time to realise that the insular world of pornography achievement is not something that the real world takes notice of. Also, for other readers or mods, note the curious account creation in 2016, dormant until taking part in this deletion discussion today and then editing the article. There is a strong whiff of outside meddling/collaboration within this and other porn deletions lately. TheValeyard (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me sir or madam, but what you express is your very own point of view. Porn actors/actrices are persons of public interest just like main stream actors/actrices. The porn industry each year creates sales of billions of dollars or euros and nobody takes note of it? Not seriously. Maybe Wikipedia decides to eliminate all porn contributions from their database for some reason. Then one have to accept it, otherwise not. The findings you made about my user account are right, but contribute definitely nothing to matter resp. to this discussion. Meilerkarl (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Porn actors/actrices(sic) are persons of public interest just like main stream actors/actrices" (sic)... Then you can of course provide evidence of this? In the form of reliable sources that demonstrate the public interest? TheValeyard (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 9 citations in the article at present; the IMDB of porn (1), press releases announcing winners/nominees(4), and interviews appearing in a softcore magazine(1), a porn website(2), and a porn magazine(1). Porn-DB is out, press releases are out, interviews by the very outlets that give the awards (AVN and XBIZ) are not sufficiently independent, so the only usable sources for notability there are the magazines. Your entire premise for keeping rests on shaky WP:BLPPRIMARY grounds. TheValeyard (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said when nominating, I am totally neutral as to whether the article stays as an article or is turned into a redirect. The sources were discussed at WikiProject level, and it was found that there were no serious BLP concerns. What I am not neutral on is people misrepresenting the situation because they don't like it. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to learn about Mark Spiegler's alleged track record of fictionalization and how it has contributed to this article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please also discuss whether this could be redirected as proposed if you !vote delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Malkova, Mia. "Mia Malkova".
  2. ^ Malkova, Mia. "Mia Malkova".
  • Comment: That's not the PORNBIO standard. Just a few days ago the Alektra Blue article was deleted by consensus, and she'd won the equivalent category in a "notable" award set. And the sourcing here is dreadful. There are only three substantive references; the first (Penthouse) [78] is both flimsy and unreliable; the third (XBIZ) [79] is nothing but PR copy masquerading as an interview -- "Lana Rhoades is an icon in the making. As surely as era-defining pinups Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe and Raquel Welch came to symbolize sex for entire generations, the newly crowned 2017 XBIZ Best New Starlet is destined for immortality" -- spare us this utter bilge, so palpably nonsensical it would give Sean Spicer pause. The AVN piece is similarly riddled with the standard porn agent cliches -- "“But then me and my boyfriend broke up. We dated for three years. … I’ve only had sex with one guy before porn" . . . and promotional comments from her agent and folks hawking the videos she performs in.[80] Not a sign of fact-checking is evident, and in the XBIZ piece written after she changed agents, big chunks of her bio have been changed. Hell, they don't even agree about what her first "Boy-Girl" porn film was. There's no reliable biographical information on which to build an article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll correct my rationale to address your issue. I believe the XBIZ Awards is well known (a different subjective standard than notability) more so than the FAME Awards that was not adequate for keeping Alektra Blue, and the category significant therefore she passes PORNBIO. As for your comments about porn cliches, which contentious details have made it into the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:25, 27 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Loves You[edit]

Lo Loves You (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 is provided that this short film is notable Grahame (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 03:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Heapsgay and i-D are the #1 and #2 references of the article, and velvet is there too. Perhaps you were looking at an earlier version of the article. As for Schmidt's comment regarding putting the citations here, are you asking that the article be duplicated on this discussion page? I'm new at this. The citations (currently 7) are prominently displayed on the article page. GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but most of those citations speak toward her earlier film. Non-blog commentary meeting WP:RS are needed speaking about this latest. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. My understanding is that Ms. Rhodes has made only one film ("Lo Loves You"), and my reading of the citations is that they all refer to that one film. If I am mistaken, forgive me. GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss whether this could be merged/redirected to Cloudy Rhodes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 20 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. postdlf (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign players for Botev Plovdiv[edit]

Foreign players for Botev Plovdiv (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 (removed by the article's creator with no rationale). We have here a list of every foreign national who's played for a particular Bulgarian football team. While "other stuff doesn't exist" isn't an argument itself, I've not found any other such lists at club level - there are plenty at a league level. Moreover, there's no indication per WP:LISTN that this particular group of players have been discussed as a group. I admit I have precisely no Bulgarian, so it's possible that I'm mistaken in this claim, but what research I can do doesn't show it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:22, 24 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. A Traintalk 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Vichare[edit]

Roshan Vichare (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 only one potentially notable film. He made the debut in it. Looks like clear WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 19 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 Clear delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 09:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Stringer (Christchurch)[edit]

John Stringer (Christchurch) (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)

It appears that the article has been created by John Stringer himself, who intends to use it as his official profile. Key parts of the article are unreferenced or referenced using social websites. The article is not written in an encyclopedic style - rather, it engages in promotion and apologetic of his activities. (He might be notable, but the article in its current state is unsalvageable; if Wikipedia should have an article about this person, it should be rewritten from the scratch.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete: a non-notable failed political candidate that fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mattlore (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy deleted this after blanking by the creator (G7).-gadfium 09:09, 19 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 Cyanide & Happiness. No consensus to keep despite sources mentioned. Leaving the history in place in case anyone wants to merge something. SoWhy 09:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joking Hazard[edit]

Joking Hazard (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)

Fun but not individually notable, secondary sources are almost entirely lacking. Delete or merge to Cyanide & Happiness. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 19 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) 19:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lottoland[edit]

Lottoland (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 essential an advertorial defending the legality of the operation DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely false assertion. The article describes an object perceived in many countries of the world. The sources are valid. It belongs to the subject that in Germany, state Lotto companies claim that the activities of Lottoland in Germany are a violation of the German Inter-State Gambling Treaty. This controversy is clearly adressed. Both views are described on the basis of valid sources. Above that: There is not a single court in Germany that prohibits Lottoland’s business. Atomiccocktail (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty big company, well known to may, sourced article.Fleets (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 19 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 09:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Varthai Oru Latcham Juniors[edit]

Oru Varthai Oru Latcham Juniors (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 television program. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:45, 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 00:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 19 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. After two relists and no discussion for over a week, and none further expected. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Bible Plus[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Palm Bible Plus (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)

Unreferenced for a decade, and I can't find any references. Fails notability criteria. Original author says "I agree that this can be deleted". Hirsutism (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another source - review on mobiletechreview.com (I don´t know this page, but may be RS) [88] (2003). If this is RS, I would lean to keep. Pavlor (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another (Czech...) source - big four page review on palmhelp.cz (community help page, which accepts articles from members, but has also its own editing staff and article in question was written by editor in chief; hard to judge as reliable source, but it is not a mere blog): [89] Pavlor (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:39, 19 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. A Traintalk 09:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshake Duck[edit]

Milkshake Duck (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 online term that has only been in use for a week or so. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies here, I think it might be better suited for Wiktionary with a stripped down definition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TussilagoFanfara (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be considered even a term pre-June 2017, only a tweet joke. The article falsely cites a source, it doesn't say it was used then, only that it was applied to past events. The Oxford blog article (mentioned, but not cited in the aricle) about the word is skeptical at best about it. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:38, 19 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 List of military decorations of Nazi Germany. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 13:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe Honor plate[edit]

Luftwaffe Honor plate (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 apparently trivial decoration; significant RS coverage not found either in English (link) nor in German (link), just passing mentions and / or non RS. A de.wiki article exists but is equally unconvincing for notability: link. Article includes no sources, apart from links to self-published web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even sure if it was an official decoration; it might have been a personal gift from Goering, by the look of things and given the dearth of coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.105.23 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 92.204.105.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:37, 19 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. Sourcing identified after relisting swayed the discussion in favor of keep. Still probably just borderline notability, but hopefully stronger sourcing will develop over time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Hutchings[edit]

Candice Hutchings (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)

Scant coverage in independent reliable sources, no awards won, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Rentier (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment - Plenty of public recognition in Canada and the US as a public figure. Note for Rentier - no attempt was made per WP:BEFORE to improve the page prior to nom Styles01 (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meets WP:GNG with several references from independent reliable sources including: Canadian major news outlets such as CBC (Canada's largest public broadcaster), SiriusXM (The Largest Radio Network in The United States and Canada), The Social (CTV - One of Canada's largest public broadcasters), The Toronto Star (one of Canada's largest news publications). Styles01 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for WP:CREATIVE -- in the field of vegan cooking, Hutchings is one of the first to create vegan junkfood and vegan comfort food, with one of the largest online followings in the space. (See statistics and references on page). Further, the body of work extends to over 300 videos, an internationally published cookbook, and over 300 recipes online, the subject of over 200,000 monthly views on each the videos and webpage medium. Styles01 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dissection of sources, as of now, without considering their reliability:
  1. The subject's own Youtube channel
  2. A brief mention among 50 other Youtubers
  3. Two word mention among 20 other channels (the two words are "Edgy Veg")
  4. A brief mention on a blog among 20 other Youtubers
  5. A brief mention among 10 other channels
  6. Looks like a TV appearance by the subject (video not available in my region) - an interview, which contributes little to notability
  7. Looks like a TV appearance by the subject (video not available in my region) - an interview, which contributes little to notability
  8. Looks like an appearance in a podcast - an interview, which contributes little to notability
  9. Four word mention ("Candice Hutching (Edgy Veg)")
  10. Rehash of the previous news, this time the subject is not mentioned.
  11. Yet another news about the same thing, this time the channel's number of subscribers is listed in addition to a quote from her. Trivial coverage.
  12. Link not working
  13. The subject's own video
  14. The subject's own book (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edgy Veg Cookbook)
  15. A (short) interview with the subject
  16. No mention of the subject here
  17. Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")
  18. Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")
  19. Three word mention ("The Edgy Veg")
According to WP:GNG, significant coverage should "address the topic directly and in detail". What I see here is a collection of brief and trivial mentions that does not satisfy this criterion. Rentier (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment - 10 Additional citations / references added to further corroborate the meeting of WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Styles01 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.
  • The persons body of work has has won significant critical attention
  • The additional citations now show a wide variety of peers and successors referencing the subjects work in depth, as well as a variety of reliable sources covering the subject or their novel contributions craft in depth. They also show a variety of "roundups" of the top vegan chefs on the internet (best 50, best 20, best 11, best 10) specifically and directly noting the subject.
  • Per WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" several of the references are from Canadian, UK or US national media outlets (CTV, CBC, SiriusXM, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Daily Mail, Toronto Guardian), several of them are ENTIRELY on the subject, and those that aren't include the subject of moderate mention within a shortlist of other notable subjects. " Significant means that the subject is mentioned in the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
  • re: #6 and 7 above - they are full segments on one of Canada's largest national broadcasters, where the subject is sharing her craft with a studio audience, and a panel of hosts (Canada's version of "the View" in USA). The show is widely viewed by a national audience in Canada. Presumably if it was the American "View" the commenter would consider that notable.
  • re: #12 - the webmaster has said that they are currently porting the site to a new server, that new server will hold this page
  • updated #16 to include mention - awards to be announced next week. Styles01 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the above, and given the subject is the author of an internationally published work by a reputable Canadian publisher, has had featured appearances in Canada's top media, combined with the easily verifiable size of this person's fan-base (as evidenced by the cited videos and social media links), this article meets WP:GNG Essabowser (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin. Please note that Essabowser is a paid editor who has been maintaining a Wikipedia page of another Canadian YouTuber. Rentier (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. I have a personal relationship with another unrelated Canadian YouTuber. I am not a paid editor, nor do I have a professional or paid relationship with the subject of the article. However, my profession is working with Canadian YouTubers, so I consider this my field of expertise.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no because the relevant policies are WP:Not webhost and WP:Promotion, both of which say can be an immediate factor in deletion alone without guidelines. In fact, GNG explicitly states "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason" which links WP:What Wikipedia is not, therefore the policy takes clear priority over gudelines. Can you describe a policy that would supersede these? Because while I cited 2 in mine, I'd like to know what would counter that, if at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:NOT states that articles must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, which this one is. Also, WP:GNG in regards to promotion addresses articles which do not pass ANYBIO, which this one does as per The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. If the subject is covered in multiple reliable sources as turned up by Ritchie333 and added by me to the article, then we are not dealing with a promotional article; we may instead be be dealing with promotional tone which can be addressed through editing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the sole factor, what is instead the article suggests a webhost profile of which we have WP:Not a webhost. The sources offered as I highlighted above are actually announcements and notices in special interests publications such as how-to's guides, and for that, we actually have WP:Not a guide which says "should not be guides or describe how to use it". Also, GNG is not able to supersede WP:Promotion since the latter is a policy, regardless of sourcing. Adding to this, WP:Deletion policy importantly notes: "anything unsuitable for an encyclopedia" which would apply here. "multiple reliable sources " is not entirely the case since that user who offered them, agreed there were press releases. See GNG section that reads Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. I'd willingly reconsider if you can substantiate how this directly affects policy and what specific section, since

I also had quoted above the part where GNG says "is the topic unsuitable for [WP:What Wikipedia is not". I agree with the philosophy that we must ensure we cut no corners in accepting content and this article shouldn't be taken any differently, therefore my analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 27 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) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Ukrainian origin[edit]

List of English words of Ukrainian origin (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)

We already do this at en.wikt, specifically here. I would nominate everything currently in Category:Lists_of_English_words_of_foreign_origin if I had the patience to wade through all the instructions and procedures (sorry if I missed a step). See WP:NOT#DIC. Gamren (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:16, 19 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 deleted A9. by JamesBWatson (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Begins to Shine[edit]

The Night Begins to Shine (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 song, does not meet song notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:17, 19 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 Variegatic acid. SoWhy 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3-O-methyl variegatic acid methyl ester[edit]

3-O-methyl variegatic acid methyl ester (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; there is a lack of in-depth secondary source coverage of the compound. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:12, 19 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) 19:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Krylova[edit]

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

There is a claim for notability, but article looks as very promotional in it's current form and not encyclopaedical. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 19 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) 10:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEC APC character set[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is a non-notable character set. It was prodded for this reason but was contested.The subject of the article is not notable as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore should be deleted. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 17:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is void. First of all, these links are fine, but even if they were not, it wouldn't matter a bit in regard to the relevance of the information. Also, if there are issues, they can be worked on over time - this is what we are doing all the time. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it would not add much to the merged article (it is just a table of characters). -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 22:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be "just" a table of characters to you, who is obviously not interested in this information. However, exactly this table of characters is of major interest to people carrying out data/program conversions, doing computer forensics, or dealing with internationalization issues. They are also interesting for computer historians. This is exactly the information such people expect from an electronic encyclopedia. Character sets are part of the legacy or "essence" of what's left today of platforms like NEC's APC family, and it is important to preserve it for generations to come. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 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 09:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it was pointed out before, it would be possible to merge this info into the main NEC APC article, but I would prefer it to be kept in a stand-alone article because we have a long-time project running trying to collect and preserve character set information in Wikipedia and this is the standard format we have chosen for articles about character sets. Keeping the character sets separate from the main articles about their platform helps not to clutter those main articles with huge tables (and to distract from character set issues for those interested in character sets), it also allows easier cross-linking between related character sets, and gives more room for future expansion, f.e. adding conversion lists to Unicode (where possible), an often sought after info today. In some cases character sets also have histories and uses beyond those related to their main platform. This can be described in a dedicated article about a character set, but might be off-topic in a generic platform article. So, in order to try and keep a similar format for all character set articles it is desireable to keep the NEC APC character set article as a separate article as well.
In general, we can be thankful that someone finally spent the time to create this article, as it was one of the former red links in the list of character sets still to be added (it was on my long-term "to-do" list as well). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:09, 19 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Alfredo Sica Bergara[edit]

Luis Alfredo Sica Bergara (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:BIO. Article is a bullet list of things he did. NikolaiHo☎️ 02:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 21 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. No prejudice against recreation as a properly sourced and NPOV article. A Traintalk 09:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch constellations[edit]

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

A one sentence article basically about the template and links to Dutch cartographers/explorers. All the information on it is present elsewhere. This article does not appear to serve much of a purpose. TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This includes anonymous editors: User:203.205.34.102, User: 1.53.54.186 These edits being a suspected sockpuppets from the edits here.[99] ), and recently User:190.10.149.71[100] - all relating to the same subject and/or Dutch articles. Notable all of these editors have appeared in this page's own revision history and all around the same time and all suspiciously after Zingvin's initial edits .[101] Another sock suspect is User:Ziaozi who added this. [102] or User:42.117.77.225 here.[103] (with User:Zingvin adding these categories here.[104])
My own complaint is that these edits are seemingly nationalistic and greatly overstate their importance, as I stated after this edit.[105] This editor has multiple times, as seen on the "Revision history of "Constellation""[106], repeatedly has added the same text several times, and ignored others advice. Worst, they have not engaged via the Talkpage, and have avoid gaining consensus. Also the editors above argued on Dutch constellations here.[107] and here.[108] Worse again, they ignored advice. (Further discussions of this being overstated appear under "More on Plancius" here.[109]
I am also concerned with User:AstroLynx, whose discussions seems to promote rather than following gaining good consensus and avoiding WP:NPOV as highlighted in this discussion on Petrus Plancius here.[110] AstroLynx did similar things here.[111], and notably stating "Bayer is therefore often mistakenly credited for introducing them." and really looks like WP:OR
Please note that I am not in any way involved in the creation or promotion of the above-mentioned page. If you have any problems with my edits regarding the origin of the southern constellations, for which I prefer to cite relevant rather than outdated sources, please address them directly on the appropriate talk pages or on my talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...for which I prefer to cite relevant rather than outdated sources." Sorry evidence says the contrary, as per your admissions to my linked pages above. All I'm saying is the recent behavior is suspicious and likely agenda driven. You may or may not not be involved, but the direct evidence is as presented as I see and experienced it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you accuse me of being a sockpuppet, you will have to present better evidence. Otherwise it is just malicious slander. AstroLynx (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AstroLynx: "If you accuse me of being a sockpuppet..." Please read more carefully I've never suggested such things, simply based on your many useful contributions in your own contribution list. Those that could be sockpuppets are those mostly reverting Dutch pages only to support this topic as IP addresses. (I've only mentioned you here to be transparent.) If I've inferred you are a sockpuppet, I unreservedly extend my apologies. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted – discussion closed. AstroLynx (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note; I have recently greatly modified the Constellation page to remove this bias. Possible sockpuppetry here needs further investigation IMO. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Can we block anonymous users?" Yes if they are proven sockpuppests. Multiple users reverting documents for the same kind of agenda just seems to say yes!
As it plainly says above: "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 02:45, 19 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) Lourdes 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Futerfas[edit]

Alan Futerfas (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)

Speedy declined on the bizarre ground that working for the Donald confers notability. There is nothing in the article to suggest that this is anything more than inherited notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced. See WP:NOTNEWS. Loads of people are the subject of a brief flurry of media attention; this is not the same as being notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just reread Notnews, and I am not convinced, so I guess that's that. I am interested ot hear what EEngs has to say, I know he has strong feelings regarding wikipedia being used as a newspaper. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While there has an incredible flurry of news activity regarding the subject during the past 48 hours, I'll bet sums that they will still regularly be talking about this guy for the next few years. From my past experience with NOTNEWS AfDs, some of which I !voted delete at, I have it found it better to wait some time after article creation, as it is easier to ascertain the level of good coverage as opposed to "They are writing articles on this guy? Me too!" which can just contribute to ref spam. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I've been poking around back in my time machine :) and I found some older sources which help against SUSTAINED (if that is going be invoked): he was lawyer of defendants in Mafia case back in 2016 and here he is important enough to be mentioned twice as the lawyer in a cyberattack case against JP Morgan in 2014. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - he is notable as a criminal defense attorney, particularly for the mafia and the Trump Jr only solidifies his notability. Here are some scholarly discussions, although I do not agree with the premise that these are necessary for notability of a criminal defense attorney. See [114] [115] [116] He is not Johnnie Cochran, but then again who is? --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 02:43, 19 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.
More