< 2 July	4 July >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gery woelfel[edit]

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

Not notable. No reliable references. Fbdave (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources presented are trivial, and I found no significant coverage in other online sources. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. GAB^gab 13:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:PERSON as all sources are either incidental or non-independent. Hazarasp (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 16:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO. DrStrauss talk 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any significant coverage on him - only his columns. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 10 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred G. Barrett[edit]

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

Biography of a mayor, not sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL. The base requirement for local officeholders to get articles is that they have been the subject of significant press coverage, but all that's cited here is one obituary, one article about the process of selecting his interim successor, and the webpage of the local historical society -- there's literally no evidence being cited of any coverage for anything he did during his mayoralty. And even the content of the article, as written, is just "he lived, he worked, he got married, he became mayor and then he died" -- basic biographical details that have no bearing on notability at all -- so there's no basis on which to hand him a presumption of notability in the absence of more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The fact he the stadium is named after him (Fred G. Barrett Arena) appears to be notable, at least in Ottawa, so giving me pause to blanket say delete because coverage is not enough, especially when said coverage would have been in the early 80s. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Has had a municipally-owned building or street named after him" is not, in and of itself, a free NPOL pass for a mayor — at a random guess, half to two-thirds of everybody who'd ever been mayor of anywhere would get a Wikipedia article if having had a street or a rec centre or a library branch or some other piece of municipal infrastructure named after them following their death were all it took. And while it's true that any coverage of him would have been in the early 1980s and thus probably wouldn't be lounging out in the open on the Googles, I've done a ProQuest search and found nothing useful there either: apart from just three relatively trivial hits contemporaneous to his term as mayor, literally all I get otherwise is a bunch of references to the arena, and a small handful of namechecks of him in coverage of the byelection to choose his successor. (And this is in a database that includes newspapers from Ottawa where local coverage of him would be quite routinely expected to exist, yet I still found literally nothing of value.) Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, were you able to find a readable copy of the column on page 2 of the July 3, 1984 Ottawa Citizen entitled "Barrett capped his long political career with mayoral victory"? (Unfortunately the Google photocopy of this page is illegible.) Also, according to the biography at Hockey Draft Central, longtime NHL defenseman Fred Barrett was Fred G. Barrett's son, and "Fred G. Barrett played a major role in the growth of minor hockey in the Ottawa area." If nothing else, a sentence or two about the father should be added to the younger Fred's bio. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that didn't turn up in the ProQuest search — probably because ProQuest works from the same microfilms that Google News does, so if it's illegible in the Google scan then ProQuest wouldn't have had an OCRable copy either — but that's plainly little more than a blurb in length, so even if we could actually read it somewhere to extract any actual information it still couldn't single-handedly lock in a GNG pass all by itself if it was the only new source we could actually add to what's already here. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable, pure and simple. --Lockley (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist, then this should be closed as NC
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failing the GNG and NPOL L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO. DrStrauss talk 16:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both GNG and NPOL. Very little detail in the article itself. Merits the mention he received for being mayor on the Gloucester, Ontario, article, but that's about it. Cthomas3 (talk) 20:35, 10 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 Oncology Nursing Society. With reminder that merging does not require starting an AFD. So Why 09:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ONSEdge[edit]

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

Not notable. No longer exists. Content could be merged into Oncology Nursing Society Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oncology Nursing Society; not independently notable. No reason for a merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete nice catch. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oncology Nursing Society, which presently has no mention of ONSEdge at all. This will obviously improve the merge target article per this omission, making it more complete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oncology Nursing Society. Agree with Northamerica1000. Cthomas3 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Direction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Direction (geometry)[edit]

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

This article contains almost no encyclopedic content (and what there is, is duplicated in other articles), and most of it is written like a personal reflection. I don't think there's anything to salvage here. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Direction has multiple mathematics pages that cover this topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Power~enwiki. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Direction: nothing worth keeping but anyone ending up there for whatever reason will be best served by the DAB page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, good point. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:49, 10 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. As an aside, speedy deletion under G11 occurs because of how an article is written; merely being written by a COI editor is not sufficient. Also, being a COI editor is heavily discouraged, not plainly prohibited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police Hour[edit]

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

Non-notable internet news organization. Their main claim to fame seems to be breaking news that gets reported on elsewhere, but I am skeptical. They say they broke the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and yet the source they cite doesn't make that claim (see this talk page post). Most of the article consists of citations to minor/incidental coverage in other sources that Police Hour is not responsible for, aside from a few photo and video credits. The "fundraising" section has a small amount of coverage that actually mentions Police Hour directly, but not nearly enough. — Earwig ^talk 21:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a dissemination point for police department press releases and 'weird news' stories like whatever this story is, nothing more. They don't cite where their stories come from, so that definitely adds questionability to this site. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being entirely promotional, spam or any other term you'd choose. Conflict of interest issues are also a worry, so I wouldn't object to someone else making a stronger call than this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We did not believe this was promotional, however, we have removed any content you deemed promotional and will be willing to work with the admins to ensure any further content deemed promotional or spam is removed. it was not our intention to have this written as promotional. sorry if this has broken the rules regarding this. could anyone offer any suggestions? if you require or believe any other content is promotional please let us know, our content is sourced via ourselves within our newsroom by our team of editorial staff and then we share this on our website and national media request usage, hence our links to external media, other news is shared at the request of policing press offices on urgent appeals. many thanks for your help and i would appreciate if the page could be kept even if it is greatly reduced we would be willing to work with the team to ensure this is compliant and ensure this is not a victim of a speedy Deletion... We would further add that if you are based within the policing community that Police Hour is notable especially within London and Northern England XNewsUK (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: XNewsUK (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Comment You're declaring a clear conflict of interest, which we don't allow here; thus this article might easily meet a WP:G11 speedy deletion as XNewsUK is the original creator. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to be blocking you for a shared use account, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a shared use account? XNewsUK (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "sourced via ourselves" and continued references to "we" and "us"; only one person is allowed to utilize an editing account, as Shawn linked to you. And I'm seeing no improvement in the copy at all. Nate • (chatter) 20:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also you deleted a large amount of text without letting anyone know in this nomination and shifted my comment to a completely different place in the nomination to make me look like I was responding to myself, which is absolutely not allowed. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Clearly your minds are already made up, tbh we have no gain from this page, so you might aswell remove it, what i do object to is the way in which you have ripped apart our company, in a malicious and targeted way. If we are a promotional account why were we approved in the first place, very little edits have been made and none linking to our registered media site, clearly the system of appeal, therefore, does not work, we have had no gain from having a wiki page. your minds are already decided, no one will pop up in support of this page or any other page as clearly this process is not fair. to be honest we are not that bothered about wiki so you might aswell remove it. what we are bothered about is the offensive tone, the slander and comments about out website and claims that have been made about this, Please remove as we do not wish to be part of such community that everytime we comment you threaten a block. clearly, this is not a fair process and this is our last comment on the matter. Nate the comments you make have no reference to our wiki page, and we were sent a message via Wiki to appeal this so of course it is going to be our selfs, if you believe companies do not write their own wiki pages you are clearly deluded, this is common practice by all companies and all people within wiki, and it is also common for companies to edit these as the way the site works malicious comments and phrases are added by anon users, We were offered this page as an appeal, if you cannot allow us the decent for a response Simply remove it. Further we removed the long text because no one listened to our defence, clearly you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and you know fine well this account follows all rules, this is not spam as you have suggested or promotional and it is certainly notable, however if you are entitled to your own views, but not being within our target audince you would not be aware of who we are and we would fully accept your small minded views, We would therefore request the page is removed, we have alreadt attempted to remove ourselfs from this communuty as we do not wish to be apart of it because of the vile cluture it has bread as demonstrated within all the messages we have been sent on a number of areas across wiki, for clarity once again this account is accessed by one person only and is not shared, we is as in the company, clearly the page we are talking about Police Hour is a company, all repesentations have been made as a we because you are completely attacking our company, We will not be adding anyfurther comment or response. XNewsUK (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

"'Remain page was not created by XNewsUK only edited they are verified as a news outlet on Facebook and Twitter, having read their news myself they are very notiable and newsworthy. Despite the page coming across as spammy a bit of guidance would fix this. Slugworm146 (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Slugworm146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

With respect, the page was created by the XNewsUK account. I don't believe anyone here is doubting the claim that they are a news outlet, but rather questioning the notability of the news outlet that they are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see notability established here. Only one of the sixteen news citations listed was about the subject of the article. Some or all of the others were using media hosted at the Police Hour site. A news source that uses a media company's services is not the same as news coverage of that company. The other three citations included one directory listing of police resources that had an entry about Police Hour and two crowd funding charity sites that Police Hour was participating in. pellea72 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 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 and redirect to Montgomery Community College (North Carolina)#Apprenticeship Montgomery. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apprenticeship Montgomery[edit]

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

County apprenticeship program, no notability, fails the general notability guidelines for inclusion. Largoplazo (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially no content, and even with content it wouldn't clear WP:GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I find no evidence that this org has received anything but routine, trivial coverage or that it has done anything particularly notable. Rrachet (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Montgomery Community College (North Carolina)#Apprenticeship Montgomery. --Hirsutism (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems reasonable to me. Largoplazo (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Montgomery Community College (North Carolina) § Apprenticeship Montgomery as a valid search term, per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 10 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) 19:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClearTax[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

nonnotable and promotional, though several good editors have tried removing some of the worst of it. Kept as non-consensus in 2015, but I think our standards are higher now. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just for clarity - I have now removed additional promotional content and unsourced claims (see edit history for earlier versions), but have not removed any of the previous sources. Most sources are just business announcements and overhyped PR interviews, but a few of them might have enough journalistic substance for a weak keep even by our current standards (not sure yet) - will need to think about this a bit more. GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a promo blurb, with routine coverage of funding, partnerships and clients served! This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promo piece, not notable and fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 19:08, 5 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) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Akella[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PROF. The previous recent nomination was withdrawn without a full discussion. Repeated insertion of copyvio into the page makes one wonder if this is not just a self promotion exercise. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly non-notable. With two blocked sock puppets and repeated insertion of copyvio material, maybe salting is necessary. --Lockley (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no serious concern if the article is still salvageable. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep on exactly the same grounds as in the first nomination of a week ago. It is the AfD that should be salted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as in the previous AfD. As I said there, having a publication with over 1000 cites and 19 with over 100 [1] is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. Nothing has changed in the last week to make the subject less notable than before. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- PS If the article as nominated appeared badly mangled, it's because it was: JamesBWatson correctly removed some copyvio content, but in the process also removed many non-copyvio improvements, such as a lead sentence that said who the subject was and proper article categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salt/Full Protect. I don't know for certain whether the person meets WP:NPROF, but regardless of the result of this AfD, the new status quo should be maintained for several months. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and No Salting as the 2 users behind it were CU-banned as sockpuppets therefore unnecessary and only needed if they return; as before, notability has been shown for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keepas per Wikipedia:Notability (academics)Light2021 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject passes WP:NPROF. Pratyush (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 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) 20:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Naeem[edit]

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

Reality contest participant, but did not win. Does not seem to meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Sources given all relate to him being on the show and are trivial mentions, except for one Wordpress blog. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The biography is an article about regional singer, moreover the article is yet a stub and needs to be improved.-- User:Kazmi^Talk 21:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Kazmi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:GNG. cited sources are not reliable except one. --Saqib (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source to verify this claim. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tried to find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources on Google but came up empty; fails GNG. The above rationale in the keep !vote aren't valid reasons for keeping an article. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:52, 10 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. So Why 09:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Virtual Tape Library (Open Source)[edit]

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

After being PRODded and unPRODded, I'm bringing this to AfD given that it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any subject-specific notability guidelines, due to the dearth of coverage of the subject in any reliable sources. /wiae /tlk 19:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literally no RSes found in Google and Bing, thus failing GNG and NSOFT. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to make any claim to notability and appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Should merge with Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, of which it is a program Rathfelder (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:02, 4 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. So Why 09:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mettl[edit]

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

no evidence of notability.The refs are mostly the usual Press-release based newspaper sources, and a variety of mostly promotional notices. The NYT article is a small part of a general article about technology in India. Written by a new account--the similarity to other such articles is so great that I think odds are rather high that it's a paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- run-of-the-mill professional services company. Copy includes routine product / corporate news and general puffery, as in:

In 2014, the company began offering online certification for IT programs.[14] That same year the company opened an office in California and named Subhash Tantry president of US operations!

There's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the content strategist at Mettl and while there is a conflict of interest, I would love to have a chance to review and edit the article as per the Wikipedia guidelines if possible. As for the puffery, Mettl has won a number of significant awards including IE50 Awards, 2017 which was not mentioned for the same reason. Any guidelines on how to approach this better would be significantly more helpful. Nayakdebarshi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Nayakdebarshi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, not notable, fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 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 merge to Sundance Group. Other articles not subject to this AFD can be merged individually per WP:MERGE without need to bring them here. So Why 09:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Dine-In Madison 6[edit]

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

This is the first location of a chain that was owned by a group, started by a celeb. There's nothing to indicate that this particular location is notable and the coverage speaks only to its opening. Nothing in depth to indicate it passes WP:ORG. StarM 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Unique in 2007...not so much in 2017 when AMC's main competitor in the area has dining as a regular experience and its recliner seating experience with all their theaters. Finally, the other unique aspect, that they carry mainly art and indie films, is now dispensed with, as half the titles it has currently are mainstream Hollywood titles. Thus, now just another theater. Nate • (chatter) 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, I propose AMC Dine-In Kabuki 8 be added to this nomination for the same reasons. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note I'm no longer familiar with bundling, but please do. StarM 02:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Sundance Cinemas~~ Sundance Group ~~, which already has the pertinent details about this theater~~. --Lockley (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire concept is dead, though. Sundance Cinemas should probably redirected to the same section in the Sundance Group as it's clear AMC didn't renew the brand licensing agreement; as for this theater, keeping it just because 'FIRST!' isn't really a viable reason to keep this even as a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Sundance Cinemas had survived as a brand, and grew more than it then, then the first location might be notable, but I can't find for AMC itself or Regal having articles for their first location, so even if that had happen it probably still wouldn't warrant a standalone article. The information should of just only been a section in Sundance Cinemas to begin with. WikiVirusC (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Lockley and Mrschimpf| have both made part of the right call here. Merge Sundance Cinemas and AMC Dine-In Madison 6 into the pertinent section of Sundance Group. Leave the redirects, as redirects are cheap. bd2412 T 01:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

aye! makes perfect sense, I'd adjusted my !vote above --Lockley (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to the same, no issue with a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 01:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a WP:MILL movie theatre, and nothing more. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cloud[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any individual awards and not playing in a well covered league for long enough to presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in the hundreds of NN articles created in open defiance of all notability guidelines (and for which the editor was, all too belatedly, community banned from new article creation), this undistinguished minor leaguer doesn't break the pattern, even before a SPA barged in and added all manner of fluff trivia like his martial arts interests and what he studied at college. Ravenswing 01:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ravenswing. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:27, 10 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) 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Henley[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not winning any individual awards and not playing in a well covered league for long enough to presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in the hundreds of NN articles created in open defiance of all notability guidelines (and for which the editor was, all too belatedly, community banned from new article creation), this undistinguished minor leaguer doesn't break the pattern, however long his career was. Ravenswing 01:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although in fairness this may have met the notability criteria when it was created, since we used to only require 100 AHL games. Rlendog (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notablility requirements for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ravenswing. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:25, 10 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godi Financial[edit]

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

Promotional article where the subject also fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Only coverage is by BusinessNewsWales and government sources. BusinessNewsWales all but admits to being a marketing agency that helps Welsh businesses grow clients, so it would not meet our definition of a reliable source. This article fails both points of WP:N as it both fails the GNG and is excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is a business advertisement, and it is based on advertisement sources. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it now fine?? I have read the wiki guidelines and remove all the useless source links from the page. is it now fine? Please inform. Prajit_Roy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a business directory. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:05, 10 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. CSD A7. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A Peel[edit]

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

Non-notable HR professional. Being the head HR guy for Yale is clearly not a pass of PROF because it isn't an academic position, nor is being a fellow of the National Academy of Human Resources. Sourcing that exists is insufficient for meeting GNG as it is just routine coverage of board appointments. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, head of HR isn't notable. --Hirsutism (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree, and have nominated it for speedy deletion. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was debating A7. The thing that made me send it to AfD was the claim of being a board member of two publicly traded companies, which arguably could be a claim of significance depending on which admin you talk to. I thought sending it to AfD would be best, but don't have objection to a speedy if others think it qualifies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a non-notable executive, and a speedy delete would be okay. --Lockley (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 4 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. So Why 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Brown (columnist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market newspaper columnist, based entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single article in a neighbourhood weekly newspaper within the same city. As always, community weeklies are not in and of themselves enough coverage to confer a GNG pass -- if they were, we'd have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees and winners of high school battle of the bands contests. Coverage of that type can be used for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG has been properly covered off by stronger sources, but cannot carry a GNG claim all by itself as the only reliable sourcing on offer. But none of the other sourcing here assists a notability case at all, and nothing stated in the article is strong enough to earn him a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourceability than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable newspaper columnist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; I believe this isn't the Ottawa-based traffic reporter referenced at [2]. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Land Investments[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage about the company from reliable sources. Most of the article is sourced local business websites, mentioning transactions the company is involved in. Actual coverage of the company appears to be less significant. The article appears more promotional as well. Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- only routine announcements & trivia. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete it looks like a lot of sources but almost all are routine and from Florida. LibStar (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 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 Speedy redirect. There were 29 backlinks, and no merge was needed as the parent article already had every bit of information. (non-admin closure) --Hirsutism (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basecamp (software)[edit]

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

Pending from a very long time. No need for company or product to have 2 separate pages. Light2021 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No actual content will be lost. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 3 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) 20:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nickan[edit]

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

self-written vanity page sourced to self, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete in accordance with WP:A7. No evidence can be found of meeting WP:MUSICBIO, and the name-dropping in the article makes it look like the subject is trying to hard to seem notable. Notability is not inherited by association, after all. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be fine with an A7 as well. Fails GNG/MUSICBIO/etc. No independent sources. South Nashua (talk) 19:53, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Mexico[edit]

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

it seems that this page was missed from wikipedia:articles for deletion/Northwestern Mexico. same issues (i.e: wp:o, wp:rs, wp:n, wp:madeup) from the series apply here.68.151.25.115 (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completed the nomination for the IP, and agree with their rationale and the precedent. ansh 666 07:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of vital notability question, WP:ORPHAN is not a rationale for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nom mentions this is one of a number of Mexican regions that were entirely concocted by a wikipedia editor some time ago. They had no basis in actual Mexican political divisions. As blatant OR they cannot be independently sourced. The other articles were AfD'd and were rightfully deleted. This one should be too. --Lockley (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, this was not created by the same editor who created the other deleted pages but was created six years later by a different editor. And unlike the others, I think this is actually a valid designation used by multiple reliable sources [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] That there is no such political subdivision is not relevant if an informal geographic subdivision exists (cf. Northwestern United States, Southwestern United States etc.) Regards So Why 12:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As with the others, this regional definition is not supported by sources. The sources you've listed (thank you btw) are not consistent about where the boundaries are, which is an important thing to know about a region. Trying to "harmonize" those sources for consistency would cross over into OR. So I still think it's unverifiable. I have no emotional commitment, though, and I appreciate your view. --Lockley (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Northern Mexico" might not be used consistently but it is used as a regional subdivision by a large number of sources. If sources disagree what parts it is composed of, the article should mention it but that does not mean it is OR. See the Southwestern United States article I mentioned above for example. It, too, contains info that some parts may or may not be included in that area, depending on the source. And this article already mentions that "Northern Mexico" is defined differently depending on source. Most sources seem to agree though that this area encompasses the states that border the US to the north, cf. [9]. Others include the states mentioned in the article, like [10]. So it seems that this is a concept that is widely used, just not consistently. But documenting the inconsistencies is fine as long as we don't try to fix them ourselves. To that end, I reworded the article a bit and added some sources. Please have another look. Regards So Why 20:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In case someone disagrees with SoWhy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

then why were the other articles deleted? Eastern Mexico, Western Mexico, Southern Mexico, didnt those have sources?68.151.25.115 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the AFD mentioned above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern Mexico. I won't weigh in further since I closed that AFD. Regards So Why 06:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which doesnt address my question. a google search turns up just as many sources on these 3. im unconvinced...68.151.25.115 (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

additionally [11] was a deleted redirect. it seems User:SoWhy hasnt done the research thoroughly.68.151.25.115 (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term is clearly used by numerous reliable sources. The fact that there's no one consistent definition is irrelevant to the deletion and can be discussed. Some sources consider Virginia part of the Southern United States, others don't, and a few consider the whole state except Northern Virginia to be a part of The South. And there are a couple other borderline states too. Nonetheless, the region is clearly notable and all this is discussed in the article. It should be the same here. If the other terms are in common use too, which judging by the comments in the AfD they aren't, maybe they shouldn't have been deleted either. Smartyllama (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SoWhy's reasons.--NoGhost (talk) 21:00, 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) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Judd[edit]

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

Possibly fails WP:NARTIST. The WP:PROMO is so bad I considered using WP:G11 but considering its age I concluded a community discussion would be better. It's a case of WP:DYNAMITE I think. DrStrauss talk 15:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NARTIST. Maintenance tags have been on there for years and no improvement. Concur with nom. Waggie (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete portions of the page may be copyvio or perhaps the multiple sites hosting this material got it from here. It's unclear given the age of the page. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, by WP:CREATIVE. the purpose is surely promotional , but the writing is reasonably descriptive as writing in this field goes, so we can best delete it here. There is also some copyvio, from http://www.blocprojects.co.uk/bloc-assembly-performance-platform-with-compass-live-art/ and probably elsewhere. It might be enough for G12. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative comment - I've removed the cv material. It was very, very far from being G12-able. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 4 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 and salt as created in violation of block (G5). (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edris Azizi[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, no indication of appearing in any films of significance and search for reliable sources bring backs nothing. Normally I'd delete this per WP:CSD#A7 but the article has already been deleted and recreated a few times, so I'd like an AfD to cement it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt and throw in a G5 for the reasons mentioned above. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Humayoon Shams Khan. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Meets WP:CSD#A7 and fails WP:GNG. This should have been salted long ago. Also Bbb23 deleted it under the socking criteria less than a month ago (it would be nice to have included the name of the sockmaster in the log). Is there any chance that the user who keeps creating this is not also a sock?- MrX 15:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- MrX Sometimes it's good to cover all bases, like a g4 to really put a stop to it, which I think is what Ritchie333 is aiming for. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that. I've seen this sort of thing before - the creator will just create Edris Azizi (actor) and we'll be off again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. My comments weren't meant to be critical of anyone here. It was just general complaining about our bureaucratic policies biased in favor of spammers.- Mr X 15:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: An article sourced to the subject's own company and IMDb profile. Neither searches nor the work list on IMDb indicate attained notability per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 3 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 Decepticons. So Why 09:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ransack (Transformers)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Decepticons, no independent notability established by the sources, chiefly toy price guides and fansites. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect name only to List of Decepticons. There's nothing to merge as the content is largely uncited original research; what's cited is trivia sourced to blogs, fan pages, in-universe publications and other unsuitable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 8 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) 20:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Edobor[edit]

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

This is not a very well known person. Minor political activist. Never held publicly elected position. Robellion (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG: no in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There are a few comments from him and mentions of him, but nothing much about him. He has been published as a writer in a few blogs/magazines but nothing that attracted significant comment or reviews. And he hasn't held political office sufficient to make him automatically notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the chair of a political party's youth wing is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — it can get him an article if he can be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, but it does not hand him an automatic presumption of notability on bad sources just because he exists. But the sources here aren't supporting a GNG pass at all, as it's based almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 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 merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Intermediate deities. So Why 09:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsbane[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Intermediate deities (under "Mask"). BOZ (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite 3rd party sources. Sources listed are all in-universe publications and do not help establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- what do Keep / Merge voters intend to merge? The article offers no citations, let alone to independent RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FANCRUFT and the tone of WP:OR due to the exclusive use of primary sources, though I wouldn't object to a small mention being merged into List of Forgotten Realms deities#Intermediate deities or The Avatar Series. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:17, 10 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. There were policy- and sourced-based !votes to keep, with rather a lack of such to delete the article; equally, the former tended to be of more substance than the latter. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grab[edit]

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

Questionable biography, includes subject's own website as a source. All other sources fail WP:ONEEVENT. ZarosFlok (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: Keep article, and expand it. It is true that the article uses the subject's own website as a source, but that is because the article is a stub, not due to a lack of notability. Three of the references with the article are about the artist generally, and not WP:ONEEVENT. It's pretty easy to find more online material about this artist which was written independently of the artist. One example is:

http://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/balancing-rocks-art-science-28012015/

Rather than deleting this article, I would hope someone would have the time to expand it. (I would love to work on it myself, but just can't tend to all Wikipedia stubs). The artist is also notable, when judged against Wikipedia:Notability.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Sourcing is adequate. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the standards at WP:CREATIVE. That's what the standards are for. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE Rentier (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw this story somewhere, and it smacks of WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You "saw this story somewhere"? Do you think maybe you should research it a little more thoroughly? WP:BLP1E is not even applicable. What would be the "one event", in this instance? Bus stop (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the references, I found by simple google search, I see it as a clear case of passing WP:ARTIST: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc... Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on my initial comments above, and also because subject meets the standards of WP:CREATIVE. One editor's comment that "I saw this story somewhere, and it smacks of WP:BLP1E" is not a valid argument because this article is about an artist and not an event. The references with the article span many years (at least from 2014 to 2017).—OhioOakTree (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with OhioOakTree's statement that the sources span a number of years. There are sources from late 2014 and early 2015, and the 2017 reference is merely a post from a social media account belonging to the subject. It does not invalidate WP:BLP1E as an argument. ZarosFlok (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "event"? However unusual balancing rocks might be, it is not "event" any more than painting, for instance, is an "event". Sources are calling him an artist and he calls himself an artist. An art form is generally practiced over and over, making it not an "event", certainly not "one event". Arthistorian1977 has posted several new sources in his post above. Bus stop (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a citation with Michael Grab published June 19, 2017:

http://talemrecruitment.co.uk/2017/06/19/art-or-engineering-we-speak-to-michael-grab-gravity-glue-stone-balancing/

I just added it to the article. This person is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and it is extremely easy to find independent citations about him that do span several years. This article's shortcoming is that it is a stub. That it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability is very easy to establish.—OhioOakTree (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:ONEEVENT is not applicable, because the subject has received coverage through the years regarding his works. See some source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Chaffe[edit]

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

Won an award as part of a team; doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nominator. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being one member of a team which won an award as a team is not in and of itself a strong basis for a standalone BLP, for the same reason that every musical band does not automatically get to spin off standalone BLPs of every individual band member if the band itself is the person's only notability claim and only point of sourceability. It would be enough if the article could be sourced to at least some evidence that Chaffe himself had been the subject of some media coverage independently of the team, but the only other source here is his own LinkedIn (which is not a notability-assisting source, because it's self-published.) Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 8 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) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Van Allen[edit]

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

Won an award as part of a team; doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete' per nom Rrachet (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable and no claim to notability. --Lockley (talk) 06:08, 4 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. So Why 09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Avoujageli[edit]

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

Won an award as part of a team; doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While biting tongue. Yes, I understand the nominators reasoning for bringing this to AFD. However, I can see someone starting a list of Annie Award winners and Steve Avoujageli would be part of that list. Be it team or as an individual and that makes me pause. In that Annie Award, not on the same caliber as a Oscar or Emmy is still a notable accomplishment. However, until the list is proposed, delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nominator Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:21, 3 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) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Ikarashi[edit]

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

Was part of a team which won an award. Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of indepdent reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with Johnpack Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:21, 3 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Tasting (film)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NFILM. While the film has been accepted to several film festivals, that unfortunately isn't a criteria for passing WP:NFILM. As far as independent secondary sources go, sources cited are IMDB, blogs, and interview articles with the director. With the film coming out just this year, it is simply wp:toosoon for this movie to have it's own wp page. Comatmebro (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The film is already out on Amazon Prime, and will be out on other platforms soon. It isn't too soon for it to have it's own wikpedia. The film is currently OUT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyfilmmaker32 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Tasting has also been referenced in the Huffington Post, which I just added to my edit of the article. This is certainly major media coverage, and I've a number of other sources and the film is out on Amazon, and coming out on other outlets this summer, as well as having screened at festivals. I believe I've met all the criteria. And this is definitely not too soon with the film already out and already getting reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyfilmmaker32 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The editor that created the article is a connected contributor. reddogsix (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. Being distributed in some form is not automatic notability. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post, which covered the film, alone is significant media coverage. There's no reason to clutter the entry with every article written by on. The entry meets wikipedia's defined qualifications as A: publically distributed, and B: notably covered. Huffington Post is a major media outlet owned by AOL, and in turn owned by Verizon, a Fortune 500 company.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the distribution by Amazon alone, one of the world's biggest media is significant. KinoNation, the distributor is also placing the film on VOD platforms and VOD is a legitimate form of distribution. Amazon alone is enough to legitimize the entry, as everyone has heard of Amazon.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. The Huffington Post has consistently been considered as not reliable for notability. And Amazon will distribute essentially anything. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete because other media outlets besides the Huffington Post covered, and the film has been screened at film festivals, and has a separate distributor from Amazon. Films are not released on all VOD platforms at the same time.

Besides, define "notable" which as some as you use it is ill defined. The film has already had reviews coming in on some sites, and will be reviewed on other sites but there is no need to include every link or story that mentions the film. The current links are sufficient. On a more cynical note, I hope the implication isn't that only summer blockbuster films that are backed by major corporations are "notable" because this implies this entity is in the pockets of certain major corporate interests.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also question the person who claims that the Huffington Post has not been considered "reliable" for notability. That's a claim with no supporting evidence in and of itself, and it does not belong in this process. Anyone can make such an allegation about any media outlet.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with DGG and SL93....Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly because the producer's AFD was relisted as well and redirecting/merging to his article seems a possible outcome if that one is kept
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION and this film isn't very notable Rrachet (talk) 15:17, 3 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. So Why 09:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Samuels[edit]

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

Delete per WP:GNG. I also nominated his movie Wine Tasting for deletion. There isn't enough here to establish notability. Sources provided are IMDb, Facebook, and a list of articles written by the subject on a website called OpEdNews - no reliable secondary sources covering the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've definitely added reliable sources from Hollywood screenwriter John August, and from other Hollywood bloggers. My actions as an activist in 2011 as an Occupy related activist were very notable, as I fought to bring attention to the marginalization of filmmakers/screenwriters of color and that news blew up. Go Into the Story, owned by Franklin Leonard's Black List, also mentioned me, as did many others. I've just added this to an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyfilmmaker32 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The editor that created the article is a connected contributor. reddogsix (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable. Might be someday. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as last contributor used is ill defined. What is "not yet notable" and what is "notable"? There are third party mentions of the writers work by major media outlets, and by major Hollywood writers/bloggers. If allegedly writer is not notable, then notable should be clearly defined. Writer has passed the wiki's stated definitions of major media mention. It's also completely not fair to try to include independent writers as not notable. I sincerely hope people are not trying to say one must writer studio summer blockbusters to be notable, because that implies you're in the pockets of certain corporations.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. My own Google search didn't find anything else, and the references on the page simply aren't acceptable for establishing notability. --Kbabej (talk) 21:36, 3 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) 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breeder (producers)[edit]

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

Non-notable musicians. - TheMagnificentist 16:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - DJs and producers are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable; no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 10 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. So Why 09:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five Musicians[edit]

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

Non-notable musicians. - TheMagnificentist 16:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately named group, I've found no coverage by searching. There are, of course, many thousands of articles about bands with five musicians. The article external links offer nothing helpful to this subjects notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Gab4gab (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability in the article, and an impossible-to-search-for name. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Fi Bugs[edit]

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

Non-notable musicians. - TheMagnificentist 15:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no claim to notability. --Lockley (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable, while the article lists no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 10 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) 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elson Gaskin[edit]

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

No indication of notability in cited sources. Acting Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Barbados post does not confer notability. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete post does not confer notability, not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the position of Acting Deputy does not confer inherent notability, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 4 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) 19:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Capital Training Group (CCTG)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Promotional and non-trivial mentions in sources. Winged Blades^Godric 07:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO on an unremarkable business. Part of a walled garden which also includes Kris Roglieri (businessman). Spam, basically. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with coffman Sulaimandaud (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches show passing mentions of the firm and its founder but I am not seeing the in-depth coverage needed to establish encyclopaedic notability by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO of a non notable organization - Rrachet (talk) 15:19, 3 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. So Why 09:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Saiz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Super Tomas (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. However, there are some reliable sources on Google, mostly interviews. - TheMagnificentist 15:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hmmm, Saiz is a pretty well known DJ on the dance scene, playing international shows and he has remixed tracks by other notable artists. But I'm aware that none of this is enough to justify an article about him by itself. I'd be surprised if there weren't some articles/interviews with him in dance magazines like Mixmag, but as they aren't available online, I can't make a case for keeping this article at present. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 6 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 Spell (band). So Why 09:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons in the Sun (album)[edit]

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

An album by a questionably notable act that fails WP:NMUSIC. There is a lack of significant secondary coverage that contributes to notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching found a track listing at All-Music which I've added to the article. No coverage, reviews or other, found in additional RSes. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Gab4gab (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To achieve clearer consensus and potentially to discuss whether to redirect to the band's article per WP:NALBUM
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Spell (band) which includes very similar content. Spell's page might not be notable, but they're still more notable (maybe meeting WP:BAND #6 at least) than this recording which attracted very little critical attention. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references and no claim of notability. I'm not opposed to a redirect but have no opinion as to where. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Evangel Classical Christian School. So Why 09:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evangel Christian School (Alabama)[edit]

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

Removed prod because the school does exist in Alabama and there are some sources for it. It is a hybrid home school/brick and mortar school We need to discuss its notability. Here is the correct website for the school. http://www.evangelhomeschool.org/. Rogermx (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the GNG. Home school groups aren't typical community institutions like you would find in your traditional schools, so I'm fine with a hard delete and no redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources I found about the subject:
1. Etheredge, Alec (2017-03-08). "Evangel hires first full-time athletic director". Shelby County Reporter. Retrieved 2017-06-18.
  The article notes:
  For the first time in its 13-year history, Evangel Christian School has hired a full time athletic director to run its athletic program and serve as its football and baseball coach. The Alabaster-based private school made up of homeschool students has hired Tim Smith, formerly athletic director and headmaster at Cornerstone Christian School in Shelby County.
  ...
  Evangel’s athletic program has been a perennial powerhouse in all sports, despite being run entirely with the leadership of volunteers. Since beginning in 2004, the school has won numerous conference, state and national championships in football, volleyball, boys and girls basketball and baseball. The school currently competes in the Alabama Christian Sports Conference and moved up from eight-man to 11-man football this past fall. The athletic program is made up of student-athletes from both Evangel Christian—the homeschool “school”—as well as Evangel Classical Christian School.
2. Etheredge, Alec (2016-11-05). "Evangel wins 2016 ACSC State Championship". Shelby County Reporter. Retrieved 2017-06-18.
  The article notes:
  The Evangel Christian School football team got a strong performance from quarterback Micah Murphy who led his team to 459 yards of total offense, 235 through the air and close to another 235 on the ground, to propel his team to the 2016 ACSC state championship.
  Evangel would end up taking down Ezekiel by a final score of 68-30 to take home the title.
3. "Evangel places second at BEST robotics championship". Shelby County Reporter. 2016-12-15. Retrieved 2017-06-18.
  The article notes:
  Evangel Christian School in Alabaster recently placed second at the south’s BEST robotics championship at Auburn University.
  Evangel team sponsor Stephen Daniels said this is the fifth year for Evangel students to participate in BEST (Boosting Engineering, Science and Technology).
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- It is described as K--12, does that mean it has a secondary department? If so, "all high schools are notable" would seem to apply. This was merely a pragmatic ruling, because pupils wanted to write about their own schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron, "all high schools are notable" is no longer the consensus

czar 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, above vote struck. I didn't see the sourcing when I searched, but that's enough to convince me that it meets the standards we traditionally hold high schools to in terms of independent coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These three sources are all from the same super-local paper ("Alabama's best community newspaper"). Is this really enough information to do justice to the topic? czar 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of small town high schools only get coverage in their local paper. Rogermx (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the routine local coverage isn't enough to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with due respect to Cunard, that is all WP:ROUTINE coverage in a local newspaper. I don't think notability is established here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not actually a school. Based on its website, it's a religious organization that supports home schooling primarily by organizing athletic competitions, and calls it "home schools covering". It offers no classes, though an allied organization (Evangel Classical Christian School) does. The current article is deceptive advertising. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Evangel Christian School's website (http://www.evangelhomeschool.org/services-provided.html):
Classes Offered on campus
1. High School Classes through ECS Tutorials Program
2. K-12 Classes through Evangel Classical Christian School
From Evangel Classical Christian School's website (http://www.evangelclassical.org/about/):
History: ECCS was founded in 2000 with 53 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. In 2005, ECCS began adding one grade per year, becoming a full K-12 school in 2010.
Both schools have the same address:
423 Thompson Road
Alabaster, Al 35244
DGG (talk · contribs), would you support retaining the article if it was renamed to the actual K-12 school, Evangel Classical Christian School? Information about Evangel Christian School can be moved to a subsection.
Cunard (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think that's a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would support Cunard's plan also.Rogermx (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Cunard's rename proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the above proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 8 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) 20:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shailendra Sharma[edit]

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

All of the references are primary and promotional. The books authored by the subject are all self-published. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOTE. Dammitkevin (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Dammitkevin (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources independent of the subject. Hazarasp (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 4 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) 20:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Rack Records[edit]

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

A very recently established record label. No notable artists (the ones with articles seem to be already up for deletion in one form or another), and searching for non-self-published sources drew a complete blank. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines and this article fails our main policy for inclusion What Wikipedia is not on several levels Article and sources fail to establish notability - 4 of the sources are self-published, the other 2 are listings of corporate filing in New York. Article was created by founder of the company. As nom said searches provide no sources that meet criteria necessary to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 20:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM; appears to be part of a walled garden being built by Special:Contributions/TheMartian360. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON to establish any notability for either the label or its artists and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Pure self-promotion. Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 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) 20:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Huston[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF - has a few journals published but nothing else. A search for sources brings back several Thomas Hustons, but nothing that's obviously related to this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim to notability is as a teacher. Uncontroversial case, probably could have been prodded. Agricola44 (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to American Psychology Association. Next time, please don't bring article to AFD that you don't think should be deleted. WP:PM exists for a reason. So Why 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions of the American Psychological Association[edit]

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

Should merge with American Psychological Association. This is just a list of its subdivisions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep alhtough possibly rename as List of Divisions of the American Psychological Association. Vorbee (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this list notable in its own right? Rathfelder (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, quote from nominator "Should merge with American Psychological Association.", why, then, is this at afd, shouldn't merge discussions take place on the article talkpage? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with American Psychology Association. @Rathfelder: I'd consider withdrawing this AfD and opening a merge discussion instead. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or TNT. Poorly written article. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I've added merge tags to the articles pointing editors to this discussion. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Psychology Association, but just the ones that are notable in their own right. I wouldn't want the article to get feel like an org chart, which isn't what wikipedia is. Rrachet (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 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. So Why 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ybarra[edit]

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

Promotional article of less known singer, no evidence of notability. Created by an SPA with a username same as the subject of the article. Isibtain (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page written by the article's subject. The references are from user contributed sites, trivial mentions, and self-press releases. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of it needs to be cut, but as far as I can tell this, this, and this are reliable sources and are not user-contributed. I think that just about pushes this over the limit for GNG. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I disagree with the argument above that interprets the examples provided as significant coverage. This, and this are just web pages that cover/chronicle the local music scene for a very narrow audience. This reference perhaps carries a bit more weight, but the coverage is based on an interview with the subject and promotes an appearance, not really an objective, third party example of notability. Basically, these three example combined add up to simply citing press for the sake of citing press. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shallow coverage in RSs, promotional. Rentier (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:15, 3 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. Canley (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael ullmer[edit]

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

non notable accountant--the position at the Melbourne symphony is not enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As pretty much all the content is copied from the two sources provided in the article, I am nominating for G12 speedy deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 03:24, 5 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 USABA Goalball Season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. Could possibly be summarized and merged into United States Association of Blind Athletes. Appears to also fail WP:GNG. - Mr X 20:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:57, 3 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) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Best[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (people) Ain soph (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual appears to be non-notable and the article sources do not appear to be independent of the subject - GretLomborg (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The award of Member of the Order of Canada, which has over 2,000 current members, appears insufficient for inherent notability. Nor does the subject's term on the Senate at University of Alberta appear inherently notable. Aside from the Wayback-archived CV page, I found only a case study about the subject and his company. I am not seeing enough independent sources to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD. 209.53.181.131 (talk) 20:18, 8 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) 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E. Scott Beattie[edit]

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

not notable person. i think Ain soph (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources one and two appear to be unrelated legal documents, source three is an alumni (primary reference) and source four is the company Beattie works for (primary reference). All four are illegitimate and as such, the article can be cast in to the pit of despair forevermore. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 02:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a resume. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Board memberships, even for large companies, does not convey a presumption of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 4 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) 19:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fanto[edit]

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

Company owner is page creator, with WP:USERNAME and WP:COI/WP:PAID issues unaddressed. Not much evidence business meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Looks to be mostly WP:PROMO. JamesG5 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. , probably sppeedy delete--it seems to be a vali A7 with no reasonable claims to significance. DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant COI and advertisement. Deb (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are previous speedy deletions of articles on both Fanto and Fanto Fantasy Football. The current article does little more than confirm that the company is registered and operating. I don't see the DigitalSports interview piece about the founder's plans as enough to lift it beyond WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have replied to JamesG5. I am happy to be open and transparent and believe I have started discussion here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesG5#Fanto Hopefully, this covers all the topics which have been raised so far. Kind regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesPopeFanto (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Snow/speedy. Non-notable spam. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:14, 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 speedy delete (non-admin closure). —Paleo Neonate - 04:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noddy Kidswear[edit]

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

No sign of actual notability. One reference is a business listing site, the others are all just e-commerce sites where you can purchase the products. Strongly promotional, no sign of notability. JamesG5 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article promoting the company's proposition, with poor references: blogs, a Slideshare pack and shopping sites, none of which are reliable sources. Searches, including the tailored Indian media search, are not finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't find any credible news from my initial Google search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. --Elton-Rodrigues 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
Keep:This article has relevant information about Noddy Kidswear and there is no duplication or false information on it. I believe that article without reference source should not be the sole reason for deletion. Please feel free to comment or contribute your thoughts towards Noddy Kidswear.

Note: I have made some improvement on this article and added appropriate reference source. Pshibe (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have read this article and checked the websites. I found it appropriate and would suggest that this article should not be deleted. No strong reason for deletion.

Bhavz90 (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Bhavz90 (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I have reviewed the information. Although they don't have any strong references in Google search, but the information added in this article is correct as per the website. The article looks good & should not be deleted just because it doesn't have any strong references.

Swati 12 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)(talk) 14:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article seems to be OK. Reference source shows notability. Overall the article is grammatically correct. I would like to suggest that this article should not be deleted.

Riya08511 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have found the information and reference source given in this article appropriate. I would suggest not to delete this article.Nawal25X12 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's in no way suspicious that all the "keep" activity is from brand new single purpose accounts with no other edits (except for one of them weighing in on another corp spam AfD) and that all the "keeps" have been pasted to the article's talk page. I heard a loud quacking sound. JamesG5 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: The following accounts are socks of Pshibe: Bhavz90, Swati 12, Riya08511, and Nawal25X12. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pshibe.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. We don't need advertising on Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not indicate that the subject meets WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 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 speedy delete as G11 by Jimfbleak. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Cosmetic Surgery[edit]

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

Does not appear to actually be notable, articles linked either mention a quote from someone at the clinic in reference to cosmetic surgery in Dubai overall, or are promotional fluff pieces by clinic staffers. Also strongly promotional whiff. JamesG5 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11 (Unambiguous advertising). I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Roach (musician)[edit]

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

While this musician is highly prolific, I have been unable to find secondary source coverage of either the artist or his work sufficient to satisfy GNG or NMUSICBIO #1, nor can I find references that establish the artist meets any other prongs of NMUSICBIO. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a long, prolific career. Some sources are likely to be off line. Some snippets here Google books preview:

Billboard - Mar 25, 2000 - Page 44, Vol. 112, No. 13 - ‎Magazine - ‎Full view: Veteran deep-ambient composer Steve Roach is one such musician, a recording artist who has released more than three dozen albums through Hearts Of Space, Fortuna, Projekt and his own Timeroom Editions limited-edition label...
CMJ New Music Report - Nov 1, 1999 - Page 27, Vol. 60, No. 641 - ‎Magazine - ‎Full view: Release Date: October 19; at radio now STEVE ROACH Light Fantastic (Fathom) For almost 20 years, ambient musician Steve Roach has explored the constructs and configurations of spatial electronic music. With Light Fantastic, his third ...
Review of one of the albums.

This suggests notability to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Also... detailed coverage of Structures from Silence from Fact; this from Billboard suggests a significant following in the ambient genre; a passing mention in Music in American Life states that he is "well known for his contributions to new age music"; this from Billboard indicates that he was once a presence on New Age music charts (eg, this from 1994); and his Dreamtime Return is included in 1,000 Recordings to Hear Before You Die. On the other hand, it's questionable as to whether there's a need for all of the album articles to have been created as individual articles.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's the albums that drew my attention to the entry--there are quite a lot of them in the New Pages backlog that pretty clearly don't meet NALBUM criteria, and given my difficulty establishing the notability of the main page, I wanted to sort that out before working through all the albums (didn't make sense to redirect to a page that might be deleted). Innisfree987 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the above sources sufficiently establish notability, in my view. Moreover, this person's works have been reviewed on multiple occasions by Billboard [18][19][20][21], he has appeared on the New Age charts [22][23], and he was described by Pitchfork as "one of the defining American artists of new age music" [24]. gongshow talk 18:50, 5 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. So Why 07:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mouna Ragam (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable television program. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Why do you try to delete Tamil serial articles? And this is not Non-Notable Television Program. Mouna Ragam Series Official Website:http://www.hotstar.com/tv/mouna-raagam/13874.----Thilakshan (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Official News: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/tamil/vijay-tv-to-launch-mouna-ragam/articleshow/58296601.cms.
Please do not delete the article, i am to improve this article. --Thilakshan (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major network prime time television series passes WP:TVSERIES and the article already has multiple reliable sources such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although I've never heard of this program and will likely never watch it, it does appear to be a multiple-episode series with media coverage. One issue that keeps coming up on Wikipedia that I'm not sure how to address is that many article on Indian subjects are nominated for deletion because they are poorly written. I tried to clean up the article a little and it should be fine now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 10 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) 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine McAuley Catholic Primary School[edit]

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

No references. No text. No credible claim of significance or of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A3 and tagged as such. John from Idegon (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regular delete - it's nothing more than an infobox - there is no text whatsoever. I know (at the time of my comment) the article is a mere eight hours old, but I'd be tempted to go speedy. Is an A7 applicable here? GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at the moment. Yes very new article, and there is also ditto McAuley Catholic Primary School, a different one but article the same issue. The common creating editor would appear to be experienced enough to know better? So not sure what is happening. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irrespective of our leniency towards school articles, this has no useful encyclopedic content. Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Schools are one of the types of entries to which A7 does not apply. So there is no easy A7. I would like to see an A13 criterion for infobox-only, no text, no references. They are common enough that a separate criterion would be useful. However, there is no consensus at WT:CSD for an additional criterion. So here we are. I don't think that A1 or A3 applies, and so I go with PROD for some articles and AFD with this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 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. So Why 07:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wallman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award winner. Artw (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to being a Walkely nominee (a major award) he has coverage.

Scott, Ronnie (7 June 2014), "Ink to make you think and dream", The Australian

Review of his book Pen Erases Paper

MacFarlane, Elizabeth (14 February 2014), "The medium and the message: comics about asylum seekers", The Conversation

Leads with a discussion of Wallman's work At work inside our detention centres: A guard’s story.

Scott, Ronnie (26 September 2015), "Small tales and true", Sydney Morning Herald

Includes discussion of his work

"Books", Sunday Mail, 29 September 2013

Short review of his book Pen Erases Paper

Enough coverage for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production dictionary[edit]

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

No independent indication of notability. Appears to be an effort to advertise an invention or a neologism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was also set to call b.s. on this but a Gbooks search indicates that such a term does exist, as a sort of variant of thesaurus -- one that I'd never heard of as a 58-year-old writer. Apparently geared more for students than writers, in that in addition to synonyms it supplies dictionary definitions and examples of usage? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the Longman Language Activator is the only widely published example (maybe there are others in different languages, and other volumes like Oxford Learner's Thesaurus: A Dictionary of Synonyms[25] seem to be similar in intention). It has at least one review[26]. There may be some notability, but it's not clear what title it should be under, or if a merge might be better. It should be clear that it is a real thing dating at least to the 1990s, not a new invention. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd support a redirect, but I have no idea where. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NEO. DrStrauss talk 13:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Before renominating, consider whether a merge to the founder's page could solve any perceived problems. So Why 07:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The School of Life[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as the subject is not notable. This is because the included references are not WP:RS (as they are blogs or from the subject itself) and a WP:BEFORE search found no significant non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable enough upon google search, though scantily referenced here. Can be worked upon by a neutral party. Added a few links so it can survive.. --Ekabhishek^talk 05:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but remove references to the school of life website. Some independant references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant promotional material. Beyond DeBotton's spruiking, there doesn't seem to be many independent sources. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly excluded per WP:NOTSPAM; strictly promotionalism. This content belongs on the company's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 4 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) 13:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals over the age of 80 in Papal conclave, 2013[edit]

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

Listing of cardinals who did not participate in the 2013 conclave is completely non-notable as a group. Lacking participation in a notable event is not notable in itself, and this list seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not make lists of what people did not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one-eyed Montanan horse thieves don't need company. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the 2013 papal conclave p b p 05:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That article doesn't include a list of participants (and shouldn't in my opinion). Listing all the non-participants makes little sense, and there isn't anything else to merge that isn't already covered in there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aren't the list of participants listed somewhere? p b p 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 20th and 21st century models for conclaves is to list separately at articles such as Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013. The thing here is that this is a listing of people who were excluded from participating in the conclave based on their age, which is not notable at all since it has been the law that all conclaves since 1978 have followed. This list is currently at ~90 non-participants, and merging them with the 115 cardinal electors for the conclave would also not really serve any purpose, and would only clutter that list. The other issue that I just realized with this particular list is that it is entirely based on Salvador Miranda, which is a self-published source that pops up frequently in conclave related articles, but which isn't a reliable source. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't see a List of Cardinals article that is a superset of this, but I suspect one exists. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit K. Dasgupta[edit]

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

Not notable, either by WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Author of one minor book, editor of two others. No major academic or political position. FHEA is a routine qualification, not an honour. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article more. He is also the first gay person of colour to contest the Uk elections for a major party and the first Bengali from India to contest the elections (I have provided 3 references for this). He is also the author of 2 books and editor of 4. I have added his Fellowship of the Royal Asiatic Society as well which I missed but was listed on his staff page. I hope the page is not deleted. Draken122 (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Draken122 — Draken122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I also found the following publications on the page but not sure how to list them on wiki: http://publications.lboro.ac.uk/publications/all/collated/llrd3.htmlDraken122 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable political position by virtue of being first person from Calcutta to contest UK pariamentary elections on a major party ticket. Covered by every single major Indian newspapers: http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/kolkata-boy-to-contest-uk-parliamentary-elections-for-labour-party/story-lADT3e7QwYN5IJK3B63g5N.html and http://www.asianage.com/age-on-sunday/040617/red-flag-in-a-deep-blue-sea.htmlBurtonesque (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)— Burtonesque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Being the first candidate of a particular ethnic background to contest an election is not a valid notability claim for Wikipedia's purposes, and neither is being the first gay person of colour — membership in any underrepresented minority group is not, in and of itself, a free notability boost over other non-winning candidates in the same election — and being the first candidate in his district's history ever to move his party from also-ran status to second place is not a notability claim either (especially in an election where the Maybot vs Corbynmania dynamic plainly had far more effect on the final results than anything else.) In both cases, either he wins the election or he's got nothing that passes WP:NPOL — and the referencing here is far too strongly dependent on primary sources, while the sources that actually do count as reliable ones are not demonstrating a strong case for deeming his candidacy to be more notable than the norm, because every parliamentary candidate could always show that much campaign coverage. So his notability would have to depend entirely on passing WP:AUTHOR for his books, but that part of the equation is parked entirely on the primary sources and none of the reliable ones — however, writers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because primary sources nominally verify the existence of their books either, but rather their notability is still dependent on the existence of reliable source coverage about their writing. I'd be willing to reconsider this if somebody can rewrite it to place the weight of content and sourcing onto his writing instead of his political activity, but the political activities themselves can't be the basis for inclusion as none of them constitute adequate notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:Prof nor WP:Politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 5 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. So Why 07:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Djupström[edit]

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

article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC there are no in-depth sources in the artcle. Domdeparis (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have completed this nomination on behalf of Domdeparis; the rationale above was originally posted at the 2013 AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Björn Djupström). On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I nominated it using the page creation tool which didn't act as I'd expected! Domdeparis (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the existing sources in the article are mainly Allmusic listings, which don't show notability. Per WP:BEFORE I made a good-faith search for sources; there are a few minor pieces in Swedish media about him, but I don't think they constitute WP:SIGCOV. Mostly it's trivial mentions, such as this listing of his name among other song writers or this text about a pop song he wrote; the only source I can find that is actually about Djupström is a short interview from 2010 for a Swedish regional radio channel. So he is definitely not "well-known" or "famous" by any stretch of the term. However, WP:NMUSIC point 1 says that a writer is considered notable if they have "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", and it turns out that he has co-written the song La La Love which appears to be notable. If the article is kept, a lot of cruft has to go, though. It was obviously written by a COI editor as a promo piece. --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per work mentioned in the article. It is obvious that he is working within the field. BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 3 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) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agustin Fabian[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are claims of nationally significant notability, attempts to actually improve or find such in the relevant forms should be made and there's nothing to suggest this was considered as an alternative; especially given this is from the last century and from a place the Internet is not as largely available, especially given the subject. Besides clear policy violations, there's no genuine basis for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 16:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an AfD; not a CSD.Thus claims don't matter, their truth value and verifiabilty matters.Also, what did you mean by clear policy violations?And that sources from the 17th/18 th century are unavailable hardly means we become a census directory for all those living in the era.And more importantly, the onus of inclusion is on the one willing to have the subject included in WP.Thanks!Winged Blades^Godric 04:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fabian was a 20th century writer, so the 17th and 18th centuries are not material. That said, we need people to identify the sources, not just hand wave and claim they exist somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep -- here's a review of a book that devotes significant material to the subject:

"In the second part called “Tagalog Literature,” she delves into the development and history of Tagalog novels, as well as the life and works of writers like Agustin Fabian and Macario Pineda." (Source: Book review: The subversive Soledad Reyes.

This is indicative of notability. More sources are likely to exist in Tagalog. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely a notable author. I've added a number of citations to the article to help showcase this notability. I also added more info to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:39, 7 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 Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). So Why 07:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far Realm[edit]

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

Notability it not established. TTN (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we do have one source to start with, or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect name only to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). No notability established: all in-universe content & largely unsourced original research. The few citations offered are to in-universe publications, such as Player's Handbook. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite 3rd party sources that are independent of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on this? The AfD discussion is about notability. "In-universe" sources do not count towards establishing notability; thus I believe I'm justified in voting "delete" in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 07:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bajrak of Oštrozub[edit]

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

Does not meet their respective notability criteria Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to lack of sources. Unless this is spelled differently - I wasn't able to find sources (non-English as well) that refer to this Bajrak as a Bajrak. A Bajrak might be notable, but it would have to be sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional explanation - In response to Chris troutman's question left on my talkpage regarding this AfD (diff) and on their talkpage (diff) I replied (diff) stating the following:
- I did follow WP:BEFORE.
  - The article has been already PRODed but another editor opposed speedy deletion stating "...some more references (preferably in English) would be a very good idea, but article should not be deleted without discussion".
  - I also checked interlanguage links and the only link is zero sources Albanian wiki article of one sentence about generic term of bajrak which already has an article on en.wiki.
  - I also searched for sources and found out that the topic in question has zero hits at GBS and 17 hits on simple Google search, all of them being mirrors of this wikipedia article. Albanian language version of name has two GBS hits, which are both passing mentions.
  - I checked the article talkpage and noticed that an editor already expressed their concerns about the notability of this topic and that their concerns have not been addressed. Having in mind that another editor has already prodded it, it made sense to initiate AfD.
- The topic of this article is not about a populated place which is presumably notable by WP:NGEO. It is about smallest Ottoman administrative unit consisting of several villages within Ottoman borderland. I myself created numerous articles about Ottoman Sanjaks. I think nobody created more articles about sanjaks than me. Unfortunately, individual bajraks obviously do not have significant coverage in RS.
- To conclude: this is a matter of WP:GNG. No significant coverage - no suitability for a standalone article.
- I also presented more detailed explanation about what were bajraks and how Bajrak of Oštrozub ≠ Village of Oštrozub and of course Ostrozub (diff)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a recognized territorial administrative unit it comes under WP:GEOLAND. A bajrak (from ensign or flag) compares with Bandon (Byzantine Empire), q.v. Within the Bajrak of Oštrozub are the mountain range, Ostrozub, and the Ostrožupska plain. Apparently in Albanian "Oštrozub" is "Astrazub". --Bejnar (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bejnar In this diff I think I explained that bajraks (which existed only in the Ottoman borderland - disputed territories which are not fully under Ottoman administrative and effective control) were not legaly recognized territorial administrative unit and about the real nature of bajraks and why .... until 19th century no country in history has ever fully included this regions within its administrative system and how the Ottoman attept to do so contributed to the collapse of four great empires at the beginning of the 20th century.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not think GEOLAND applies to historical sub sub divisions that no longer exist. As I read it, it appliez to current divisions including abandoned locations. If it does apply to all historical sub-sub-divisions, then we could have hundreds of sub-province listings going back thousands of years for some locales. Even during the Ottoman period itself Sanjaks changed quite a bit, and I would assume Barjaks even more.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find such a limitation at GEOLAND. However, I am not advocating an article for every bajrak, or even every sanjak. I am advocating for this one, because it is referenced and specifically because of its autonomy. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 3 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. So Why 07:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stadiumx[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a notable music producing duo with a number of significant hits. werldwayd (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 3 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. So Why 07:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blake (folk singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Nothing meaningful currently available sourcing-wise other than a few tour date websites, the musician's own personal website, and personal profiles via current and old social media accounts. No major media mentions that I could find, either. Article's sources are quite old. The original AfD nine years ago was weak as were the keep arguments (from just three editors, one who seemed to have a personal/emotional connection to the article subject) - the article should have been deleted then. Would love for someone to prove me wrong, but I think this article and subject just isn't Wikipedia- or encyclopedia-worthy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This smells like an I don't like it request. What has changed since the last one? 65.215.127.194 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed? Nothing. Which is precisely the point of this AfD. Blake is no more notable now than he was 10 years ago when the article was first written. How about you sign in an use your actual account, NY IP, so we can know who we are dealing with and make sure you won't be casting multiple !votes? That would be the honest thing to do, after all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - folk music is not the giant genre it was in 1967, but still has its fans. This musician records on a "major minor" record company. Touring nationally is evidence of a notable musician. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But does he meet WP:GNG, Bearian? If so, please show me how. I'm not finding him even meeting the criteria listed in what you linked to. Like I said in the original comments I put up here, I'd love for someone to show me I'm wrong. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found lots of news sources showing he's toured from Washington State to Maine. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do mention he is appearing in this place or that place. I don't think that would be considered (as the guideline states) "adequate sources" to establish notability (but I could be wrong). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep based on the sources I see in the more optimized 'find sources' template, it appears he's been touring nationally since at least 2010. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown bands and performers tour nationally all the time. I know several personally and none of them would meet WP:GNG to warrant an encyclopedia article. Can you give a reason based on GNG how this performer meets notability guidelines and the article has encyclopedic value? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 3 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. So Why 07:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smart phone ad hoc network[edit]

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

Sources don't use the term at all. Page is nearly a total word salad of random phone terms. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While the article apparently has issues, SPAN does appear to be a real concept that is undergoing adoption per this source. Also if you google "ad hoc" and "span", you'll turn up several articles that use similar phrases as presented in the current article. Should the sourcing be improved? Definitely. Should the article be deleted based on its current state? I'm not so sure that it should. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding the claim "total word salad of random phone terms", the article obviously has issues, but I didn't found it particularly difficult to understand. The concept (SPAN) is real and notable, Google turns up enough hits for the title, therefore: Keep and improve. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nubreed 001[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -- non notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 10 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) 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing At The Zoo[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable band; no releases in a major label, and the only coverage they have received in reliable sources are brief and passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What coverage I could find for the band in independent reliable sources is not extensive and limited to local blurbs; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 01:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and they clearly don't meet WP:BAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:24, 4 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 Snow Keep , nac, SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Painter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Now that it's off the main page and ~~inclusionist excuse #1,254,689~~ speedy keep criterion #6 no longer applies, can we try this again? Same reason as last time: Only notable for two things, being on the Bush cabinet and suing Trump. KMF (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We have WP:BLP1E, but WP:BLP2E is a new one on me. This does not appear to be a valid argument for deletion. Apart from the two claims to notability the nominator mentions, WP:NACADEMIC #5 applies, "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". Edwardx (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 21. Also #C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Subject meets the GNG and the other criteria mentioned above. Puzzled by the nominators comment "only notable for two things" which seems to undermine his own argument (such as it is). Philafrenzy (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Multiple clear passes of different notability criteria. Nominator fails to advance a valid rationale for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holds a named chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an equally ridiculous and obvious attempt to delete information on someone who is critical of Donald Trump. The man has not only worked in the Bush administration, he is also a professor (which alone would suffice) and a pundit on several channels. Don't feed the trolls! --Bernardoni (talk) 03:22, 10 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) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life and Time Odisha[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this publication. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage found; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 02:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No importance of subject. Wikipedia is not about writing article on Life and Time of different cities or states. Fails WP:BASIC --Elton-Rodrigues 19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)

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