< 7 July	9 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 merge to Enter Shikari. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything Can Happen in the Next Half Hour (EP)[edit]

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

Unnotable EP self-released by the band. Lacks any secondary coverage or reviews and did not receive any mass distribution or sales. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to artist. Artw (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to band's article - Enter Shakari. No sourcing present, not particularly likely considering its just a demo EP (according to the poorly sourced article anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge if there is any relevant information for the main page. Since this is an unsourced article, relevance can be a little difficult to determine.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their AllMusic Bio at least mentions it, so there's probably enough out there to at least write a sentence or two on it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BioTronics[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up are passing mentions or PR-driven -- insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. South Nashua (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, coverage by cited sources is not significant enough to confer notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the content is so sparse that it hardly makes a credible claim of significance and the sources given show little notability. DrStrauss talk 15:56, 15 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of public housing developments in the United States[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Additionally, many of these places are redlinks or non linked. Natg 19 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not in directory style and having red links is feature, not a problem, per WP:AOAL. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough blue links to make this a valid list. Any issues can be fixed by editing. Public housing is an obviously notable topic and this is a valid grouping of articles. Proposer seems to confuse a directory with a list or index. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly viable main list for Category:Public housing in the United States. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Booth Revival Machine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Flunks WP:NBAND. Previous AfD was closed as no consensus because someone suggested they were important to the Salvation Army community. That might very well be true but NBAND has been tightened considerably since, and they don't qualify. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NBAND. The "someone" who suggested giving the article a chance in the previous AfD was the article creator – since that AfD nine years ago precisely nothing has been added to the article by him or anyone else... I think it's had its chance, and there doesn't seem to be any material out there to improve this article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: under WP:NBAND with regards to the music and WP:GNG with regards to the involvement with the Salvation Army. DrStrauss talk 15:58, 15 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. I appreciate Steve Quinn's analysis here. It seems some information here is verifiable, but overall, there are enough concerns around the quality of sources and the coverage of this topic in sources to support deletion. That said, if someone would like to merge content from this article into a more general article (like Meitei people), feel free to contact me. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salai Taret[edit]

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

Article claiming to be about a clan concept within a small group of people in India, sourced only to blogs and similar. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches literally turned nothing anything meaningful to add, thus fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fact: respected all, it isn't like that the things aren't real or meaningful if the related information are not in internet. There's lot in real world than the internet. The bigger media who suppose to give such information are busy focusing on bigger fish, completely ignoring the smaller fish. My creation of the article is just a smaller contribute or step from my side to conserve the age old system of the related people. The article is very much needed. More information will be added. It's like, no one is interested in this, All of you will know what am saying if you happen to research about it by coming down here in real life. Thanks all. I'll try to add more information. Punshiba18 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
addition of references: have taken out the unreliable sources like blogs. Added few references. Please check it out and let us know. ThanksPunshiba18 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
updated references: respected concern wikipedians, i have updated the related references of the page, please go through it. Thank you for your contribution.Punshiba18 ❯❯❯ Talk 19:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

waiting for a clearer consensus: As the creator of the article, i would definitely say to please keep the article as its an important patrilineality system of the related community. I would like to further say, please re-examine the references updated after this discussion. More information will be added in future if, fortunately, the article is kept. Thank you all.Punshiba18 ❯❯❯ Talk 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even with the creator's addition of references the article still fails WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 15:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Request to please wait for a while I know that Meitei are descended from 7 clans (yek salai) from personal knowledge. I would be happy to try and find sources and I am sure they exist. I find it very discouraging that editors do not search hard for sources and just vote delete. This happens a lot of time on topics from India and other Asian countries. However, I don't have time this weekend, so I will only be able to look at this on Monday. Could we please wait till Monday?--DreamLinker (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article as of current form. I have changed my mind after spending 1.5 hours looking through sources. There is a lot of unsourced information. The title of the article itself it not specified in the sources and it seems to be conjectural. The sources are not peer reviewed and some seem to be unpublished theses. The journals are not high quality journals, but seem to be the online open access type. The flag is not mentioned anywhere. Usually I would have suggested a merge, but here the information is not very high quality and it is hard to verify. I think this article can be safely deleted because the information is not well sourced. Instead, I will search for high quality sources and add information to the section in the general article about Meitei people later.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked up the first reference which is a scholarly work. On Google Books, I went to the copyright page [1] and scrolled forward. On page 10 it very much backs up what Punshiba18 has in ~~the first part of~~ this article. This Wikipedia article might be historically relevant - reflecting scholarly investigations. The word "salai" does mean clan - and there are seven - appearing to relate to ancesteral gods. There is also the word "yek-salais" in the text. It says, "The valley was occupied by seven yek-salais, headed by their chieftans. I initially was only going to "comment" but I changed my mind to "keep" based on this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this reflects the lineage of one million and a half Manipurians - who seem to be descended from Meiteis, which goes way back (as far as I can determine). This helps to give this topic significance. Also, there is an academic journal article as a reference - so I am going to consider this scholarly investigation also. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ratbat[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect or delete as above. No need for this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons; the coverage offered is shallow and not sufficient for stand-alone notability. The article is largely unsourced original research not suitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 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. So Why 16:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JoeAnt[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence that this directory meets the general notability guideline. Aside from one directory review website, I found no reliable, independent sources that talk about the directory in depth. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. The only references are useless for establishing notability or for independent verification. DrStrauss talk 16:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some brief mentions of the service in the context of Search engine optimization (SEO) in general ([2], [3], but these publications have too limited an audience and look more or less like blogs posts. Some brief mentions in books ([4], [5]), but the independent coverage is not substantial enough for an article. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Kilganon[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim to passing WP:NATHLETE -- his notability claim is resting on self-published YouTube videos rather than any conventional sports achievement. And for sourcing, what we have here is one 100-word blurb, one Q&A style interview in which he's talking about himself, and one piece on a commercial athletic training company's WordPress blog -- which means none of the sourcing here is good enough to grant him a WP:GNG pass either. Basically he's a WP:BLP1E at best. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one youtube video does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable YouTube wannabee celebrity. Smartyllama (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Enigma^msg 23:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unremarkable YouTuber. DrStrauss talk 16:03, 15 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 Identity Evropa. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Will Not Replace Us[edit]

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

Slogan not notable by itself, scant coverage in sources aside from "someone somewhere used it". At best it deserves a brief mention at the Identity Evropa article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Identity Evropa. As VM says, there's nothing independently notable about this. There's some coverage, but it is "this happened, now its a slogan", though nothing to suggest that even as such it will have any longevity. It would be appropriate in the group's article, and leaving the redirect in place as a viable search is also probably appropriate. Crow^Caw 22:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with the Wikipedian above. Merge. Probably should also mention it on the page about He Will Not Divide Us as it appears to be a responce to that. Nigario.sss (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Just the latest slogan among the Pepe crowd, doesn't meet GNG to deserve an article of its own.PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per above. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Crow/VM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. No independent notability. A fairly obscure slogan. Seriously, I doubt whether a redirect is even necessary. Tataral (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the suggested merge target is problematic since the slogan is documented to have been used by Richard Spencer as well as by Identity Evropa. In addition to groups on at least two university campuses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking; use by Spencer and other significant uses if they occur can be added to section in Identity Evropa after this it redirected ad merged there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~tentative Keep~~ After spotting this AFD I looked at the page and was surprised to see that there are WP:RS. I googled ans found that there are quite a lot on what seems ot be a very new slogan. I suggest that as per WP:RAPID, we don't rush this, but, rather, close as no consensus and revisit later this year, when it will be possible to see whether this spreads or fades. But, if merged, we would probably want to merge it to both alt right and Identity Europa.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To keep, even if we punt this into the fall AFD season, article will need a couple of sources exploring the slogan in some depth WP:SIGCOV. I lean towards keeping it up for three or four months to to see whether such sources appear. God willing, the entire movement will fade by the end of the summer. Meanwile, lets keep an eye on 'em.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Identity Evropa, a short article where this will be a useful addition.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was New AfD. All of the other "Open access in COUNTRY" articles are being bundled into a mass AFD. Will re-link. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 13:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access in Canada[edit]

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

Poorly written essay about a potentially valid article subject, which cites no valid reliable sourcing to properly support the topic. This is copy-pasted from an open-content work, so WP:COPYVIO isn't an issue, but the lack of a copyvio problem doesn't in and of itself exempt the article from still having to be written in an encyclopedic manner and referenced to legitimate sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better, but in its current form this is bad enough to need a dose of WP:TNT. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on the fence when I saw this a month ago in new page patrol (there were articles along these lines in significantly worse states, so it seemed worthwhile to pick my battles), but I do agree with the nomination here. The "better" approach with this sort of thing would surely be to start on a regional level (which has been done, and in a much more usable way) and then "spin out" articles on Canada et al when the content justifies it. Drive-by copypasted articles are never the solution. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:23, 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 redirect to Luminous blue variable#List_of_LBVs. The nomination rationale is well-supported, but as there are some sources that identify it under a broader topic, a redirect seems sensible for now. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HD 269700[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTCRIT. I can't find any specific papers about this star, and as the article itself even mentions there is little information actually known about it. Only reliable references are from wide-field surveys such as "the whole Magellanic Cloud" and similar. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from talk) PLZ don't delete it. I spent a lot of effort trying to research on this star. PLZZZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeGamingCuber (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point in time there just isn't enough info to meet WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NASTCRIT. If this changes in the future the article can always be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although mentioned in quite a few publications, it is only a mention along with other stars. There seems to be nothing just written on this star. If there is any good reason to ahve this star article, I am not seeing it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Tdslk (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Specific research published on this star includes van Genderen 1999 (named as R 116 = RMC 116). It is considered to be a confirmed Luminous Blue Variable and most research has been published as part of general studies into some or all LBVs (eg. Davies 2005). van Genderen 2001 probably gives the most complete data on the star, although it is currently quiescent and its properties in outburst are not well known. To say "little is known" is not entirely true, but it certainly isn't one of the better-studied LBVs. It is currently linked from the Luminous blue variable and Hypergiant pages, where it is listed as a member of each of those small classes of star. Lithopsian (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luminous blue variable - GretLomborg (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Concur with above. Praemonitus (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Parkville, Missouri. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parkville nature sanctuary[edit]

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

This is a contested PROD, from an author who has a history of unconstructive edits and has now been permanently blocked. A Google search shows that the place does exist. However, I believe that it is unsafe to rely on anything in this article. Perhaps it is best to delete it entirely, with no prejudice to an article one day being created about this topic by a different author. Richard Cavell (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no references to show notability or to verify the claims made in the article. Could be notable but as the nominator says, unless we have a user who is willing to take this up immediately, it should be deleted with no prejudice to re-creation. DrStrauss talk 16:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one decent article that documents the park's history here, but there's little coverage about the sanctuary in books (e.g. [6]) and other online sources [7]. An article could be written, but it would largely be based on a single source. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parkville, Missouri for now. Maybe notable but certainly a plausible search term. Regards So Why 16:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parkville, Missouri. I don't see anything that supports the notability of this topic except for the one source already mentioned. Also, this means that most of the 'titillating' claims in the article are not supported. These claims give the appearance that a WP:Hoax is being foisted on the Wikipedia community. This can affect the reputation of Wikipedia if undetected. If anyone is interested there is List of hoaxes on Wikipedia presented "in order to improve our detection and understanding of them." This article has elements of a hoax. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - how about deleting this one and redirecting Parkville Nature Sanctuary? - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Thi[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, boy howdy does it ever. Creator was also trying to sneak references to her into the articles about Kesha and Kesha's mom Pebe Sebert, bizarrely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why was this not tagged with ((db-musician))? Any reasonable admin would have speedily deleted it. There are no sources except for shortcut links to iTunes entries. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: all references are to iTunes, suggests promotion, would have given it an A7 or G11 myself. DrStrauss talk 16:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Nasiri[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler and he didn't win those medals in a senior level, you can follow the links to the competition in the article Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same, they are bothers:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not meet notability guidelines for wrestlers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE. DrStrauss talk 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neither brother meets the notability criteria for athletes and they don't appear to meet WP:GNG (although it's possible sources exist in Farsi). Papaursa (talk) 17:01, 15 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) 22:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1905 Wabash Little Giants football team[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No significant coverage online. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable season, also nominate 1921 Wabash Little Giants football team Seasider91 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not surprised to find nothing online about a 1905 event. Generally we keep season articles about teams that play "at the highest level" of the sport. Since this pre-dates the National Football League by 15 years and even the NCAA by 5 years, college football teams during this time are widely considered notable for their play. There is an essay that outlines the argumentation in detail at WP:CFBSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Single seasons (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team) can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage (see WP:ROUTINE). In general, seasons that culminate in a bowl game will likely be notable. However, not all seasons by teams that participate in college football are inherently notable."
Merge the articles on individual seasons into Wabash Little Giants football. Notability isn't gained by the passage of time any more than it diminishes over time. The essay cited by Paul McDonald doesn't support an article for each season. It also is outdated. For example, Arkansas Razorbacks football, 1900-1909 is now a redirect to Arkansas Razorbacks football. I'd support the same for this article, merge and redirect. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no objection to merging the articles if they are actually merged... and I admit there isn't much there to merge at the moment. But there is a far cry between "saying they should be merged" and then "actually merging them" -- I would rather see the articles be developed. Remember, there is no deadline. So the question becomes: if they are to be merged, who will do it and then when they are developed will they be split out again? The Razorbacks football redirect is another set of articles and though it is an example of how enthusiastic editors for that particular team have chosen to develop the platform, it certainly isn't a mandate of method by any stretch. We can look at 1905 Kansas State Aggies football team or 1890 Yale Bulldogs football team or the 1892 Michigan Wolverines football team as counter-examples.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, questions could be posed regarding a "keep" !vote, too: if they are kept, who will develop them? Anyone can merge them, and anyone can split them out again. Looking at other articles about early individual college seasons, I doubt there will ever be a need to split them out again. Anyone searching for information on an individual season or to add details about a season will be directed to the main page on the team. Better to combine efforts to create one good article rather than numerous perma-stubs. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, those Arkansas seasons have their own aritcles, ex. 1900 Arkansas Cardinals football team. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wabash Little Giants football because the article contains virtually no information. However, it appears that Wabash was playing at the top level of college football at the time, so I would not want to prohibit the creation of a proper article if editors want to find the sources to write one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing to neutral due to the improvements to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment remember, the question here is not "is the article written in a way that is incomplete" but "is the subject notable" which is regardless of the current state. While it's possible that an article could be so poorly assembled that it should be deleted and start over, I don't see that as the case here. The question is not "Is this a good article" but instead "is the subject notable" and those are two very different questions. If the subject is notable, the article should stay and is developed over time. Do not confuse stub status with a lack of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NSEASONS, not notable. Not even close. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NSEASONS is inclusionary, not exclusionary. Surpassing WP:GNG is more than enough.--Paul McDonald (talk)
~~Delete~~. There are a lot more pages like this (e.g. 1880 Stevens Ducks football team) which should probably also be deleted in the future. There's no inherent notability for college football teams on a per-season level. For current-day coverage, there's enough WP:MILL coverage to justify per-year subpages, but there clearly is not here. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment did some research this morning and it turns out the 1905 Little Giants gave Notre Dame their only home-field loss in 125 games between 1899 and 1928. An accomplishment like that certainly would have been covered in the news extensively, way beyond any "routine" box scores. It stands to reason that significant off-line references exist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some newspapers.com sources about the 1905 Wabash football team, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and two pictures of the players [17], [18]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. To me, that clearly surpasses WP:GNG, especially with what we have already found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per guideline WP:ROUTINE and policy WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, summary reports of local sports results do not establish notability. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The extensive online coverage located and sourced is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE. Feature articles, details and more are clearly beyond the scope of "sports scores" outlined in WP:ROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiOriginal-9's sources and research. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In fairness to the nominator and early voters, the article was threadbare at the time of the nomination (see here), but has since been substantially bolstered with 17 sources. The article now passes WP:GNG with abundant significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Wabash in the early 1900s under coach Francis M. Cayou played at the highest level of competition for American football. The team's 1905 victory over Notre Dame was a major event of the 1905 season. Wabash also held close Amos Alonzo Stagg's 1905 national champion Chicago team in a game played on Stagg's home field. A search in Newspapers.com turns up nearly 3,000 articles referencing Wabash football in the fall of 1905. The coverage includes significant coverage in the region's leading metropolitan newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune The Cincinnati Enquirer, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and The Indianapolis Star. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: @Power~enwiki: @Seasider91: Pinging each of you to ask if you will take a fresh look now that the article has been expanded with substantial additional sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The 1905 Wabash - Notre Dame game was the subject of an article in the College Football Historical Society Newsletter that can be found here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my vote after the article improvements, and don't plan to comment further here. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change my vote to *Keep now that notability has been established Seasider91 (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Sanctum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is not notable, with a rank of 145,698 on Alexa. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 17:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NWEB. The website is not covered substantially in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable website, sources fail to indicate it passes WP:NWEB. DrStrauss talk 16:09, 15 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) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khamoshiyan Soundtrack[edit]

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

No spectacular coverage about this sound-track to deserve a stand-alone article.Usual hype and activity related to release of a Hindi Film.Almost every Bollywood film has their sound-track seperately reviewed.That hardly recommends a stand-alone article for every film-sound-track! Merge and Redirect to film-article sought.Could be covered at ease in a paragraph there.Ping Cyphoidbomb as someone involved in the case. Winged Blades^Godric 17:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:RS not met.-Umair Aj (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In-depth coverage of the entire soundtrack added at citation number 2 . The in-depth coverage is provided by India's one of the oldest and reliable news media Times of India.As of now, Notability for a standalone article exists. Further can be improved of needed by the contributors. Anoptimistix (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources have reviewed the soundtrack including Times of India and Rediff as shown in the critical reception of the article, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- @Atlantic306: Thanks for sharing your thoughts above mate. But I think you forgot to sign your comment by adding four tidles (~~~~) above.[19]Anoptimistix (talk) 06:11, 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. Sources are sufficient that the article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaalima[edit]

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

Nothing specifically covering this song.All covg. in general film-song reviews.Singular coverage lonely in promotional writings.Merge and/or Redirect to film article sought.Ping Cyphoidbomb as someone involved in the case. Winged Blades^Godric 17:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:RS not met.-Umair Aj (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well sourced plus I had added an idependent coverage of the song by the reliable and reputed Indian news media Hindustan Times at citation no 5.For general information more than 80 percent of notable song from India mostly in Hindi are from Bollywood films, because contrary to North America , India doesn't have a separate independent music sponsoring music industry of its own, so of course doesn't matter how much is the notbility of a song, a film associated with it will always get mentioned. Please don't delete, you can verify it's notability from the web. It is one of the very notable song in India of this year.Anoptimistix (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep as has reviews by reliable sources Times of India, Hindustan Times, and others to pass WP:GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typical WP:MILL covg.How can't this be covered at the film article.Winged Blades^Godric 03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage and content seem sufficient for distinct article. Artw (talk) 05:48, 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 keep. Sources have been kindly provided so I'll wrap this up, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Byrne[edit]

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

I planned (back in March) to source it however most of what I'm finding are gossip/tabloid sources, There's tons about her posing for Playboy with mentions to her previous films however I cannot fill the entire article with stuff like "Harry Potter actress Scarlett Byrne poses in the buff in the next issue of Playboy" and "Harry Potter Actress Scarlett Byrne Strips Naked for Playboy",
Easily passes NACTOR however fails GNG (In some respects she's only become "notable" for posing naked in a magazine but that's pretty much it thus IMHO failing WP:BIO1E)),

Ofcourse if anyone can find sources that aren't just her posing naked and or tabloids then I'd be more than happy to keep, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If she passes NACTOR, why are you nominating her for AfD? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is an additional criteria, Articles still need to meet BASIC or GNG, This article should not be kept on the basis of "They've been in a tv shows or films" as being in a tv programme or 2 doesn't automatically mean you're notable .... but all that being said if you can find sources that aren't Playboy related or tabloids then I'll happily keep/withdraw - As I said I planned to source this and still want to but I can't improve something unless there's actual notability if that makes sense. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Gotcha! Would any of these references help? Role in Falling Skies, mention of falling skies, role in Vampire Diaries, profile piece in Straits Times, Interview with MTV and there's this in the tabloid, Sunday Mirror [20]. If you need full access to the HighBeam articles, let me know, but you should be able to read the first paragraph as a preview. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl - Ah yeah they're brilliant thank you so much! :), Yeah I can read the previews so they're all perfect so thanks for finding those, I'll close as sk, Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 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. Meets GNG per the sources below. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Intermediate League World Series[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT for lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 16:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...Its part of Little League and we cover all the other age group world series. This one is fairly new compared to the LL World Series or the Junior League World Series.. but it's part of the same field. There is coverage out there. [21] [22] [23] Spanneraol (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of those sources are about the subject of this article and it's WP:ROUTINE. The other two are about teams. One is a blog. As far as I can tell, the only coverage for this subject is routine and mostly in local publications.- Mr X 12:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are from news organizations, not blogs, and are about the tournament. The teams in the tournament and how they did in it is still about the tournament. There are more if you look. Spanneraol (talk)
Keep - The links supplied by Spaneraol are sufficient for a GNG pass: multiple independently-published sources of presumed accuracy dealing substantially with the topic. Nicely done. Carrite (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Spanneraol. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 16 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 Ali Moeen Nawazish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AMN Schools[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability to grant an article. Might be better if redirected to its founder who is notable. Greenbörg (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, and only because there is a mention in the Ali Moeen Nawazish article – any future information on AMN Schools can go there. The article states that classes started in August 2012 and ended in August 2015. A school that failed in three years is not likely to be notable. I looked for sources, found virtually nothing (the only search result on Google was the Wikipedia article). The web site says it is coming in 2018, nothing else, which is useless to us per WP:CBALL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Backup Direct[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ineligible for PROD - was PROD'd then immediately de-PROD'd by the same person in 2012. Someone apparently representing the company (CloudDirectBath) tried to tag the page for speedy twice in March this year, saying the company is no longer trading.

I can't find any sources to indicate this passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Most of what I've found have been routine press releases that do not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. Surprisingly closed as "Keep" at the first AfD; just shows how Wikipedia guidelines have evolved. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:PROMO. Might even meet WP:G11. As with K.e.coffman, I cannot see how this survived an AfD. DrStrauss talk 16:12, 15 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. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sozo World[edit]

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

Searching produces nothing. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Broken Segue 22:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. DrStrauss talk 16:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SC Badhoevedorp[edit]

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

The team fails WP:COMPANY. It is an amateur team with no significant coverage. Kostas20142 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 16:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hagai Bar Giora[edit]

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

Created as part of the article creator's seeming and sole focus on cannabis-awareness -- a cause I would otherwise support if I felt it didn't come at the cost of notability and reader navigation with so many cannabis splinter articles. I had originally proposed a merge into Cannabis in Israel, but of course the secondary "Dietary opinions" section wouldn't fit there. We have a rabbi who was quoted in 2013 about weed being kosher, and then we have a rather run-of-the-mill support for a minor kashrut ruling, in the same year. Not an independently notable figure. His views on weed as kosher should be added, briefly, to Cannabis in Israel, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To facilitate things and possibly draw more attention to this article and Afd, I've imported the cannabis content, pretty much verbatim, to Cannabis in Israel. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of a claim to notability and lack of WP:SIGCOV. He is a government bureaucrat who happened to make rulings on a cannabis-related issue and an issue related to - wait for it - the proper shape of a popular pastry. His ruling on each issues caught the media fancy for a moment. Of such brief media flurries notability is not made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: shows no notability and as the content has now been merged by Shawn in Montreal there is no reason for the standalone article to exist. DrStrauss talk 16:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art-Switch[edit]

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

I PROD'd this in January but it was de-PROD'd with a suggestion to take to AfD.

The sources in article are mostly business announcements of the "Hey here's what we're going to do" type and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. I cannot locate any additional sources to indicate this passes WP:NCORP. The company has now dissolved, producing no fanfare or sources as it did so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article exists solely to promote the business, and even includes the pricing model. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable subject, finding additional sources would prove problematic. Second the point by K.e.coffman, such a small company should not have it's pricing model on it's article, it is advertising. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The best source is the Art Shortcuts item from The Guardian in 2008, but I read that as propositional, merely reporting a new venture pitch. In the absence of in-depth critical coverage of the company and its lifespan, I do not see this as meeting either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 14 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 Cannabis in Nevada. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Question 2 (2016)[edit]

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

Copy and pasted from the article Cannabis in Nevada Houdinipeter (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect. The redirect page can then retain categorizes for ballot measures, years in Nevada, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. - TheMagnificentist 12:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Great Trainer[edit]

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

Not notable as it is a proposed television show that was meant to be made but never was. Promotional videos were made, but no episodes ever aired on TV, and no episodes as far as I can tell were ever made. Majority of references are related to Sylvester Stallone and the lawsuit mentioned in article. Two of the other sources are self-published by the proposed TV show and/or the creator. Potential COI by one of the editors (User:Rob Fletcher), but his edits were reverted.

Nominating for deletion, information could potential be merged/added into either Sylvester Stallone or Strong (TV series) WikiVirusC (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable television production never in production. --Lockley (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no show was made; this is just non-notable speculation. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:49, 15 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. Already deleted as A7 by Anthony Bradbury Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asep Muhammad Hidir[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern = Non notable person. Only social media sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Delete Broken Segue 19:21, 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 keep. While AcademeEditorial's comments and keep rationale do not subscribe to the generally accepted protocols followed at Afds, I believe his points broadly are resonated by the other Keep editors, including Cullen. While closing this Afd, I should suggest that editors may give heed to the issues pointed out by DGG in his closing statement, and to whether any significant change in the structure of the article is required. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nader El-Bizri[edit]

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

Struggling to see how he can pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). According to his AUB page, he became an associate professor in 2012. An editor is claiming that he is now a full professor, but I can fine nothing to really support this, and that would not be enough to pass in any event. Article has a history of editing of questionable neutrality, and is rather promotional. Lots of cites and publications, but seemingly little of much note. Edwardx (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx: Possibly Criteria no. 2 via the Kuwait Prize? How do we decide if this is "a highly prestigious academic award"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It appears that every year several Arab scholars receive a Kuwait Prize from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS). 5 in 2014, inc El-Bizri. From KFAS's FAQs, "Categories change every year. The list of categories and topics are announced every year ... we are unable to reveal the names of the members of the evaluation committees due to the privacy policy of KFAS." With regard to whether it might count as a "highly prestigious academic award", that is not encouraging, nor is the fact that we don't have an article on the prize or the awarding organisation. In my view, it wouldn't meet criterion no.2. Edwardx (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I can't find much but maybe there are non-English sources. Here is the only substantial secondary RS I can find: [24]. The article obviously needs to be cut way back and edited for clarity if it survives. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look first at his university official AUB.edu webpage such [25], then double click on it his summary official CV [26]. Look also at one of the most prestigious awards in the Arab world he received as noted on the official website of the Ordered Universe Project under the patronage of the AHRC in the UK [27]. See also this noted on the university website [28]. Then look at his ranking 59 as Thought Leader in the Arab world (and this groups not only philosophers but scientists, journalists, activists, religious authorities, poets) [29], you have to search within the rankings and designate the subfield of philosophy and he is 3rd in the Arab world (and the Arabs have very rarely philosophers nowadays!). This is the tip of what you can find about him, if time is taken properly all the editing decisions made with haste will be avoided (AcademeEditorial (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Govindaharihari, why to "delete", just like that? Give sound reasons. If you have not found sources, maybe you needed to look further? Or is this just an arbitrary decision because you felt like it?? Explain!! (AcademeEditorial (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Official material are available via his university and there is there an official CV. Has anyone bothered to look it? (AcademeEditorial (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia does not consider material written by the subject of an article (e.g. CVs) except in a very limited way, because it is not independent. There are particularly strict rules for WP:Biographies of living persons. It would help if you could add further reliable independent sources (WP:RS) in which the subject has been written about at length. It would also help if you could remove all the CV-style material that is not encyclopaedic. Dbfirs 19:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs, I am not suggesting looking at the subject's CV as if it was published by him, what I meant is look at the official university website where he is based, namely [30], then through it you double click on it his summary CV which cannot be placed on the university website unless it is official, hence after clicking there you find the following: [31]. This is just an example; other links are shown above to further sources, and more appears via Google search that is useful for the discussion. I hope this clarified what I meant (AcademeEditorial (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for that link, which certainly suggests that we should be able to find some good independent references. (By the way, I was puzzled at the mixture of American and British English in that CV.) Dbfirs 07:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbfirs: (By the way, I looked at the Cv again and I guess from what I can see the use of American and British English is not connected to the body of the text but to names of institutions and titles of publications, which from what I can tell relate to how these are actually spelled by the sources or the style guidelines of the publishers of his works. So this is an accurate way of mentioning names and titles, etc. as they figure in their original sources and not inconsistency). (AcademeEditorial (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, the CV is clearly written in American English (practice, not practise), but I think you are correct that they added the "middle a" to "encyclopaedias" because of the official titles that follow. I think you are correct in campaigning to avoid deletion of the article, but it would help if you can find some independent sources. [ ... later ... sorry, I see that you have already done so.] Dbfirs 16:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - It has a longstanding history on wikipedia since 2008, with multiple editors contributing to it, large numbers of visitors, and daily, and there is a basis for keeping it and making improvements to its contents after doing patient and proper search about the subject of the article (AcademeEditorial (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)) — AcademeEditorial (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep He meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion #2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" as a winner of the Kuwait Prize in 2014, given by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences. I was notified on my talk page about this debate by AcademeEditorial. Another editor expressed the opinion that I was being canvassed. I disagree since AcademeEditorial could not possibly have known what position I would take on this deletion debate. I commend AcademeEditorial for improving this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above for why the Kuwait Prize does not appear to be "a highly prestigious academic award". Edwardx (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DEAR ALL EDITORS: I made various improvements to the references today 9 July 2017 by seeking reliable sources, websites, published material citations, and fixes of dead links. There are many other sources to consult still if time is invested in proper searches. As I noted in the talk pages and noticeboards, I have knowledge in the humanities and in tracing sources in such fields. The article would need additional technicalities to be cleaned in terms of presentation. I also looked at the KFAS, and the recipients of its awards are notable scientists, and you can search their names via Google to realize that they are of the highest calibre of what comes from scientists and scholars of Arab descent in terms of research. I fully understand how at times awards coming from the Arab region are viewed against the background of devastating conflicts for decades in that part of the world, but we have to also be patient and discerning in the way we measure accomplishments from that region and not simply aim at the same level of expectations that we immediately have from MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford; and I stating this while also fully acknowledging that many Arabs are making international academic and scientific contributions of great worth. I am not seeking polemics but highlighting aspects that need pondering when making decisions here or making judgements about Arab institutions and foundations. Thanks for these exchanges that reveal how wikipedia is self-corrective (AcademeEditorial (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

DEAR EDITORS: In addition to what I noted above, and after a careful search, and based on notability aspects that are used in academia, such as citations, esteem, contributions to scholarship, one example among others, if you look at the Oxford University Press website: https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/e/epistles-of-the-brethren-of-purity-epbp/?cc=gb&lang=en&

you will see there 12 volumes of Arabic critical editions and English translations with commentaries published since 2007 to date. These are under El-Bizri’s General Editorship. Two of the volumes are authored by him and all of them carry his “Foreword”, which indicates also intellectual leadership and not only editorship. Forewords are written by authorities in a field within the humanities. This is not simply a contribution from within the Arab scholarship, it is international and has the names of established scholars that you could locate via your own searches. The main merits of this book series are evident for those working in premodern intellectual history since it comes 70 years after Oxford published the Aristotle volumes in Greek and English, and to have Arabic philosophy in the same format now is a main development in the field. El-Bizri’s contribution in this regard is itself a sign of notability based on academic criteria (AcademeEditorial (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Borderline keep (notified by watching philosophy-related deletion discussions). He's been cited reasonably well, edited and co-edited journals and books, and has been active as an architect, but I don't think any of this is with sufficient distinction to meet NACADEMIC 1, 8, or 9. However, the KFAS prize has a global scope, a $130,000 USD cash prize, and a reasonably distinguished list of former winners, such as Ahmad Teebi. El-Bizri's appearances on the BBC [32] [33] also contribute to criterion 7. FourViolas (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above for why the Kuwait Prize does not appear to be "a highly prestigious academic award". The prize value and list of recipients are of little relevance in assessing prestige - where is the in-depth commentary about the prize in reliable sources? Edwardx (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, we are not discussing here the Merits of the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS). The Kuwait foundation that gives the Prize is highly reputable, and you can also find many entries on it in Arabic sources. It also has connections with other reliable organizations, such as:

American Association for the Advancement of Science https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-and-kuwaiti-partners-expand-global-science-communication ScienceDirect http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0045653587902773 Arab Thought Organization http://arabthought.org/en/kuwait-foundation-advancement-science#.WWNf4tPyuu4 Let is be measured and sensible in our approach to bring integrity to this exercise (AcademeEditorial (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Just to reassure AcademerEditorial following his edsum on the above post. I have checked the history of this page using the Page History link near the top. You could use that link to check as well. Be assured that nobody has altered your posts in any way. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just verified and also see no evidence of deletion (other than occasional copy-editing of your own comments by yourself). However, the way you add long comments and their placement and indentation make them difficult to follow. —Paleo Neonate - 13:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly PaleoNeonate and Roxy (AcademeEditorial (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Some editors have questioned whether or not the Kuwait Prize is "prestigious". Here is a webpage for a research consortium that includes four excellent universities that calls the Kuwait Prize "prestigious". The lack of an English Wikipedia article about a prize in the Arab world is evidence of nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is being questioned is whether it is "highly prestigious". And that article is based on a press release, and is published on the website of the Pritzker Neuropsychiatric Disorders Research Consortium about a member of staff at one of their five constituent institutions. Thus of questionable objectivity. Edwardx (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you doubt the objectivity of a consortium including four of the best universities in the United States, Edwardx, then I imagine that nothing can possibly satisfy you on this point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seem to be adequate independent reliable sources. Thincat (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His university clearly labels him as a professor as well as the director of the Civilization Studies Program. The Kuwait Prize is competitive and awarded by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences. It is awarded for lifetime contributions by an Arab scientist and currently carries with it an award of about $130,000. There may be those who feel that an award limited to this group wouldn't have enough capable scientists available to make this a notable award, but that is patently ridiculous. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revise I was asked to comment. I am not a specialist in either philosophy or Arab science, but I can recognize the major publications in the field, and distinguish between major and less important academic appointments. He is clearly notable, based on the usual criterion for academics, his publications, and the editorship of a major journal and an important book series. (I recognize it is difficult to spot the key factors in this incredible over-elaborate article.) Since the article is impossibly promotional it must be rewritten, including condensation, removal of expressions of praise, purging of minor material, eliminating importance by association, and removal of implications of his stance that are not obvious from the titles of what he published. I've started rewriting. I removed the section on book chapters, which for any academic count as minor publications. I've made a start on removing articles in what seem relatively minor journals. I'm removing some of the claims that rely on implication or self-published material, along with the footnotes trying to justify them. I'm going to do a little more this evening, but I may not finish, and urge theo thers people in the discussion to assist.

Based on the comments from the contributor, who presumably has a conflict of interest that needs to be declared, I am a little concerned that some of this might be restored, especially because some of the material that needs most to be removed has been added in the course of this discussion. If it restored, this should be brought back here for deletion as deliberate promotion.

I am quite concerned with the addition of the individual's own publications to other articles during the course of this discussion--assuming a conflict of interest, this is something which is not acceptable, and I shall soon go through and remove them , unless I think they are clearly justified. I am even more concerned by the contributor's addition of "news release" tags to a number of relatively unexceptional articles for other academics in this and allied fields during the course of the discussion--I consider it close to vandalism, ; see . I shall remove them too, unless I think them clearly justified. I don't like to do this is the course of a discussion, but in this particular case I think the insertions justify a warning tag on the contributors talk page. I have placed it, and will block if it continues or if the ones I remove are restored without consensus on the individual talk pages.

WP does not publish full academic CVs, but only what is likely to be relevant to interested readers of a general encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Clarification/Query : Dear Participating Editors. I continued adding references and sources today 15 July 2017 and building on earlier edits and improvements done by DGG, Kendall-K1 and other editors. I explained my edits step-by-step as recommended by some of you, including the helpful suggestions from Roxy. Given that this discussion has been taking place for a week and many significant edits have been implemented, will the article receive now an overall re-evaluation to see if the discussions and edits resolved most of the issues or generated significant improvements? The feedback and update is needed. I am also personally curious to know more about the protocols in terms of decision-making in this case; namely when would the discussion and improvements be judged as being sufficient and adequate, and who decides from administrators or participating editors on the next move etc.? Thank you for your helpful advice and looking forward to your responses [my same comment/clarification/query has been also posted on the article's Talk-page] (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:CD4:ECC3:F175:CCA6 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Keep He is known for his exegesis of Heidegger in Islamic context. For example he has been a keynote speaker in this conference. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azamat Murzakanov[edit]

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

Non notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA - no top tier fights PRehse (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching for sources that might have helped the subject quality on GNG, but found only reports of fights and bout listings; no sources that significantly discuss the subject. The subject fails GNG and, as the nom mentions and I concur, WP:NMMA. Lourdes 11:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no top tier fights so WP:NMMA is not met and I didn't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:21, 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 delete. Topics are notable because they have significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Notability is not inherited. GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog of the paintings on show at the Rijksmuseum in 1956[edit]

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

Contested prod. A list of paintings at the Rijksmuseum is of course important, it is one of the major museums of art, but it is very unclear why the list of paintings in the 1956 catalogue would be worth a separate article. This specific selection of paintings is not especially notable (again: the paintings are notable, the museum is notable, but the paintings on display in one particular year?) Fram (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the year, but about the group of paintings on show in the post-WWII years in the Rijksmuseum and this is the year of the catalog edition used. I believe the selection of paintings on show during directorships of top museums are notable, especially those selections for which tourist catalogs have been published. This list is representative of the paintings on show during the directorship of D.C. Roell and therefore notable as a historic record of the taste in painting at that time as well as being a record of the attributions and catalog numbers per object (the current catalog numbers were devised in the 1970s). This is data that is referred to in art history publications of the period circa 1930- circa 1975. All catalog numbers have since changed, many attributions, and some paintings have been sold or restituted to heirs of rightful owners. Jane (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then the article title has been so chosen because it's all from your single catalogue source? We don't title articles in this way, in my experience. I see you've also created 120 Paintings from the Rijksmuseum, based on another "a booklet of illustrations." Surely we're not going to spawn multiple list articles based on different catalogues and booklets. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, as I said on my talk page, the reason the year is named is because you need to be specific on Wikipedia. The 120 paintings selection is even more notable, precisely because it has reduced a choice number of 1200 down to 10% considered (at that point in time) to be highlights. I believe we should have these lists for all top museums, and not just for paintings, but also all top artefacts that can found in visitor catalogs in general. I am surprised and somewhat confused that a temporary exhibition could be considered more notable than the collection on show in a top museum. The latter are generally well covered in art history sources, including individual pieces in a traveling show, but not nearly as well as collection items are, across the board. Jane (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Like I said on your user page, it is much better to present articles on the collection of museums based on periods and regions, not based on date of display / catalogue, which is not a defining characteristic. A list of Dutch Golden Age paintings at the Rijksmuseum can include the 1956 catalogue number and attribution, and can list those paintings that were in the museum collection at some time but no more. That would be a perfect list (though perhaps this specific example would need to be split further), on a notable subject. The 1956 catalogie though is referenced in many other publications (I presume, I haven't checked, I do see that there were other editions fairly frequently), but is not as such the subject of significant independent attention. In short, I don't think this is the right way to present this information at all, and is not helpful to readers (people would to browse to multiple similar catalogue lists to see the changed attributions and the changes in taste which you want to show with this list, so it defeats its purpose). Fram (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing would be great, but is not always possible. A well-known painting such as The Night Watch can be referred to by name, but less well-known paintings (that may be highly notable for multiple reasons) will often need to be referred to by catalog number and the Rijksmuseum has changed their catalog numbers regularly over the centuries. By creating lists during key periods and listing these numbers, it increases findability. Again, to be clear, all of these paintings are notable enough to have their own articles. Jane (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose this and 120 Paintings from the Rijksmuseum into a retitled list that meets our list naming policies, or delete. While I appreciate the work that has gone into these, they would set a ~~truly terrible~~ not-so-good precedent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or maybe move to Commons I don't think the precedent is too alarming, if only because few people have the patience to produce such lists. But I agree we don't want too many such lists. Still-life paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720 is a somewhat similar article, recreating an exhibition in Amsterdam & Cleveland in 1999/2000. I think the case for that is stronger. We don't have a list of the current catalogue, which would be more useful, if probably a lot longer. This could be expanded to that, with a field for those in the 1956 one. That would be ideal. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Johnbod, as I stated already on my talkpage, this is not an exhaustive list of all paintings in the collection in 1956, but just the paintings-on-show in 1956. If we published the entire current catalog I think we are at the edge of notability. The current tourist highlights catalog is broader and of many of the old "friends" are in there, but also some gold and silver objects, bust sculptures, etc. I was able to make this list with all of the images, simply because I know they are there. I have been creating these for awhile, and e.g. was going to complete List of artists in the Metropolitan Museum of Art guide with all of the images we now have, but if you are just going to vote to delete these I won't bother. Jane (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- a) Exhibitions (at least major ones) are a different kind of beast, since these are temporary by definition, and often have many more reliable independent sources about the full exhibition. b) Some of these lists are relatively easy to make with Wikidata queries, so the patience needed to produce them has bveen vastly reduced. No objection to a move to Commons if this kind of list / gallery is welcomed there of course. Fram (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I stated on my talkpage, I disagree. Of course museum collections change at a slower rate, but they are also just temporary (see your Leuchtenberg Gallery). Jane (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unless this is the display of Dutch art to which all others are compared, there is no great notability attached here. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly is that. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I understand correctly, the rationale for this article is that it is encyclopedic to identify what artworks major museums had on display at various times. But I respectfully disagree with that, and the article has no sources that appear to establish that the compilation of this information is notable. Even if it is notable, it would probably be better served by being kept in Wikisource or somewhere like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate why you feel that the set of works on display in a major museum is non-notable? Notability is based on the museum as a respected institution. We don't need to establish that. Your vote to delete is therefore not clear. Either you feel collections of top museums are non-notable, or you feel that museum catalogs do not accurately represent their collections. I disagree with both of those views. Jane (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that museum catalogs do not accurately represent their collections. However, to be convinced that this information is notable, I would like to see some sources that particularly take note of monitoring the collection on display at a major museum at a particular time -- for example, noting that a particular artwork was on display in 1956, then in storage in 1963, then back on display again in 1968, and was sold to a different museum in 1975. And even if the information is notable, I don't understand why it should be kept in Wikipedia as opposed to Wikisource, since this is basically a reformatting or reproduction of most of the content of a publication of the Rijksmuseum. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a painting no longer in the collection since 1956 but which was on show at that time is River Landscape with Ferry. There are more cases like that. Most of art catalog literature mentions art collections at a specific point in time, so your request for the other information is confusing for me. I don't understand what you are proposing. Maybe you can give an example. Jane (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, here is a list of heritage items with a single source and the items may be added or subtracted over time (due to destruction/burning/rebuild). This example is a list at a provincial level, but at a national level, you have this list for the Netherlands, a list that has been compiled by a single source but is only referred to by institution name. In such cases, the original single-source list has been augmented with images from Commons. I believe that what museums of national importance hold to be worthy of display are just as notable as these other list items. Jane (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I am keeping my recommendation as is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten me why I haven't been able to convince you. Is this because you don't believe groups of paintings are notable in the ways other groups of heritage are notable? I am really trying here to understand your recommendation. Jane (talk) 06:43, 14 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Wine Society[edit]

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

prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." It was restored after anonymous request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_272 "Appears to have been maliciously or accidentally deleted ". Well, the proposal was neither malicious nor accidental, the article however is based on mentions in passing, primary sources and IMHO fails GNG. Comments? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work reviewing Wikipedia articles, and strong commitment to Wikipedia. I think this Society is a well-known University student-led association (not a company) within the UK and particularly within the wine trade internationally. For many wine trade visiting the UK, participating in a wine tasting at Oxford is very highly regarded. As regards to notability, it has been featured in the non-fiction textbook that documents the definitive history of wine societies across Oxford University (which gave rise to the likes of Jancis Robinson and Oz Clarke, internationally famous wine critics). It has also had numerous wine trade magazine wine trade articles written about it, both nationally and internationally (e.g. the Japanese wine trade magazine article is referenced). Numerous past-members and committee have also since entered the international wine trade. On this basis I would say it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.180.128.10 (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of reliable, secondary sources, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Notability is not inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources available to support GNG. I've found a handful of book sources which mention the society in the passing. But that's obviously not enough. Lourdes 11:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reasonably substantial mention (12 lines) in The Juice: Vinous Veritas and the role of wine expert Jacques Seysses. There's a decent mention on the Buxton International Festival and the role of Oz Clarke, admitting women for the first time and creating the England Wine Tasting Team. Some sources seem to be under Bacchus not OUWS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chiswick Chap. I'd seen the sources earlier and believe they are insignificant. For example, I see only one line in both the sources you've listed. The first source has only the following line (not 12 lines): "...but he also joined the Oxford University Wine Society, becoming part of the blind-tasting team that crushed Cambridge three years in a row." The second source has the following line: "He “democratised” the Oxford University Wine Society, bringing women into the club..." These are too insignificant. If I've made a mistake in reading the sources, my apologies; please do feel free to point out if I've read this wrongly. Thanks. Lourdes 16:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually nothing found on news sources. Not enough evidence (in my opinion) of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:14, 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) 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Gallicchio[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for MMA plus page not up to MMA standards. Udar55 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has only one top tier fight, and that was a loss. Nothing to show WP:GNG is met. Can be recreated if and when he gets three top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 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) 22:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drug War (2018 film)[edit]

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

According to film notability guidelines, films that are in principal photography are only notable if there has been significant coverage of the photography itself. Nothing about the principal photography appears to be notable; therefore the film is not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found a few sources: [34][35][36][37][38]. But they're not enough to support either NFILM or GNG. Lourdes 12:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete per WP:NFF - Reading the ref from the article, I'm not sure the principal photography has begun. The source says "director LEE Hae-young will be back on set at the beginning of July", which the article writer interpreted as July 1, but the source is dated to July 3. In any case, this indicates the photography had not yet begun when the article was published. Daß Wölf 17:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL This remake hasn't been filmed yet, we don't even know if it will be released at all yet, or even on schedule. Seasider91 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any useful content could be added to Drug War (film), which already has a section on this remake. I don't know if a redirect would be useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced advert for a non-notable conlang. KMF (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any independent sources for this. --Hirsutism (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considerable number of scholarly sources discuss this artificially developed language.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] and many more. Lourdes 12:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly like to keep this page. "Unish" is one of the few constructed/artificial languages. It is also known to be researched and refined constantly by a language development team in Sejong University. I believe it is worthwile to keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.214.183.214 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Lourdes 77.179.112.138 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Hogan (actress)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Or merge with husband (Michael Hogan (Canadian actor))'s article. Quis separabit? 03:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is definitely weak as written, but she's had enough major starring roles in enough film or TV productions, she's got award nominations under her belt, and the reliable sourcing does exist to repair this with (you just have to dig into databases rather than Google, as her heyday was in the 1980s and 1990s.) She's not actually a non-notable actress, this is just a lazy article that got created before Wikipedia was quite so strict about the amount of effort that needs to get put into our content — but I'll take a stab at cleaning this up over the weekend. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.: I see the changes and updates @Bearcat has made and I would say it qualifies as a standalone article. AFD NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Quis separabit? 15:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:46, 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) 22:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dingle[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per having only WP:ROUTINE sources. Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, has not played long enough in a league with high enough player notability or won any significant individual awards (Third-team is not enough, especially since was not even an All-American, just an all-conference). Yosemiter (talk) 21:53, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with just some routine sports reporting and fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Playing on a national champion does not confer individual notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NHOCKEY. with regrets, Bill McKenna (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Leery[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "central characters in major series are usually kept at afd.". Well, let's see if AfD will save this unferenced, 100% plot summary article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deprodder was surely correct: notable in principle. There is a book on Dawson's Creek by a serious scholarly publisher.[51] The article does need serious work. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Reliable sources undoubtedly exist for this character, in print as well as on the Wayback Machine. The in-universe tone of the article does require cleanup, but not WP:TNT. Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES] is not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source=following media in North America in the late 90s. :) Suggesting that Dawson is "not notable" would be like suggesting that Buffy Summers or Fox Mulder is not notable. It is a nonsense proposition to anyone who was there. Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's go with Google Scholar: Dawson's Creek-Sex and Scheduling in a Global Phenonemon, Joey Potter-Final Girl Next Door, Feels Like Home-Dawson’s Creek, Nostalgia, and the Young Adult Viewer, Living on Dawson’s Creek-Teen viewers, cultural convergence, and television overflow. None of those are about the character; all appear to be RS'es discussing him in non-trivial detail. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide an overview of how he is discussed, other than as part of plot summaries or trivial mentions in passing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plot summaries are transformative and useful for establishing notability, so no further justification is needed to support my assertion that the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of reliable, secondary sources, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a notable television show, and the character passes notability for fictional characters. Example of sources that are out there have been listed above. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why has this been relisted twice? There is clearly no support for Delete besides the nominator. Should it not have been closed as Keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hot cycling[edit]

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

Not sure if this article is strictly promotional, but the topic does appear to be mostly a niche class offered at one particular cycling studio. My own searching found only a single WP:RS [52], but I don't think that's enough to pass WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In addition to Boston Magazine source, there's other reliable sources covering topic [53], [54] --CutOffTies (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It will be easy to expand the topic as heat is a significant issue for racing cyclists, see Serious Cycling, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 18:07, 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) 22:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Shak[edit]

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

Some people really love their pets and think they deserve a Wikipedia article. The main editor claims that they have no Conflict of Interest, but it is obvious that Beth Shak (and I'm not saying Ruferto is Beth Shak, merely that they are connected and that creates the COI) has been involved in creating this article. The main issue however is notability. In this case, that seems to rest on the claim that the dog is a model. That means nothing. I am aware that there are notable dogs. This isn't one of them. There are thousands of dogs that have been featured in advertising campaigns, and none of them are notable for being a model. Being "featured" in a magazine is not substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The mention of her dog's instagram account getting hacked is trivial; a single sentence "Even her dog Mila’s Instagram was invaded and passwords were changed." A bit further down is a mention that "Shak’s mother’s cellphone account has also been compromised" Is Shak's mother now also notable? Of course not. The sources are Beth Shak herself, Mila's instagram account, Mila's website, a link to the landing page of http://www.hamptonspet.com/ with no identifying information an article about a burglary with one sentence about the dog's instagram account and an article about the dog's birthday party. The latest additions to this article were the Mila's twitter feed and her Instagram account. Pretending that dogs have twitter and instagram accounts is silly. Their owners write those posts, or hire a publicist. We have no reason to take this stuff seriously and should not accept this as encyclopedic content. Mduvekot (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Totally unencyclopedic vanity article. Rrachet (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice against re-creation. Possibly a speedy delete candidate. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:45, 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. Despite the discussion having been open three weeks and relisted twice, no consensus for any action, administrative or otherwise, taking place on this article has been established. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delightsome Land School[edit]

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

promo piece for a non notable school with unverifiable sources; A search throws up nothing of note except for routine stuff directories and social media. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Domdeparis (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to participate in this AFD but since no one is !voting I decided to give it a shot. A few weeks ago, I would have given this article a keep vote per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME since there seem to be some routine coverage which is unusual for an average Nigerian primary school. But with the RFC on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME, I'm not sure I know the standard for keeping Nigerian schools anymore. However, with notable celebrities being involved with the school, its proprietor base commenting on national issues, and some other impressive mentions online. I can't vote for its deletion. 1 2 Darreg (talk) 19:52, 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 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: there are probably sources about it that aren't very searchable in english, and Darreg gives some good arguments that make me think that it is probably better for the wiki to keep this article rather than deleting it. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 12:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Jacobi[edit]

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

Largely unsourced BLP lacking independent, reliable sources. Possibly a slightly edited machine translation of de:Doreen_Jacobi Article has two sources, one is a press release, the other a corporate bio. Created by a blocked user. Mduvekot (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of indepdent, reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is being judged by the current state of this article, not on the notability of the subject. Good coverage such as [55] exists. Has multiple leads and major roles in big productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

celebrity magazine cover [56]. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme I take then that it you can read German and understand that the article makes the opposite point: her acting career has not yet taken off and that her current role in a simple SAT1 detective series isn't enough to convince her to give up her day job. "Der heutige, recht simpel gestrickte Sat-1-Krimi jedenfalls lohnt den Abschied vom Unternehmertum noch nicht". Mduvekot (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or people can read a machine translation of the article and see what it really says. Regardless, it's still coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[57] has evidence of more coverage. Plus [58]. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ENT #1 Agathoclea (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Since she has no roles in any films, performances or other productions, that must be notable television shows. Which ones would those be exactly? Mduvekot (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious one that stand out are HeliCops and a main character in a Tatort episode. (Tatort in Germany corresponds to Dr Who in Britain in notability terms). The others would need checking on the details and coverage of her involvement and most likely we would need to add a few more articles on those series here. Agathoclea (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add a staring role in Problemzone Schwiegereltern to that. Agathoclea (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Since she has no roles in any films". Apart from the films she has roles in. Such as a significant role in Motown. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I hadn't noticed that Motown has a cinematic release and has been reviewed. Thank you Agathoclea and Duffbeerforme for your contributions. I'll withdraw the nomination. Mduvekot (talk) 11:17, 14 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 15:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loco ninja[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not enough solid reliable source coverage to support it: there are too many blogs and primary sources, and not enough real media. In addition, the article was created as a draft and then immediately moved by its creator into articlespace without actually submitting it for an WP:AFC review, which is not what the AFC process is for. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage which supports passage of an NMUSIC criterion is required for an article to become earned, but nothing here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The appropriate or inappropriate use of Articles for Creation is not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Supported only by unreliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician, failing WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 17:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources and bio edited GxM88 (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— GxM88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The only change that has taken place to the sourcing since the time of nomination is the removal of a handful of the most egregious PR/blog content, not the addition of any new sources at all. And the only discernible changes to the bio have involved formatting (i.e. breaking up the wall of text into actual paragraphs), not anything that added any actual new claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 15 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 15:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Masocha[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this religious leader. While being an archbishop is a claim to notability, I'm not sure it applies when the denomination is self-founded. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. In addition, article creator has removed the Afd template, which almost always indicates notability problems. Jus da fax 00:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the best independent source is that a conviction against him was overturned on appeal, he doesn't meet GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 16 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.