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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirer (magazine)[edit]

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

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

I can't find evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no plausible assertion of notability, no substantive sourcing or useful references. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam & (mostly) unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat[edit]

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

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

The article is an example of what Wikipedia is not - a directory. It is a fork of the unofficial 'Monstercat Document' and 'genre sheet' which are not relevant to this record label and does not accurately portray the label for what it is.

"The standard on Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that record labels generally don't have list articles of their entire back catalogs (there is not a Rhino Records discography article for instance), but should instead populate categories. In this case, it would be Category:Monstercat singles and Category:Monstercat albums." - Mendaliv, 2016. This still holds true. Prizyms (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite, not remove. There are at least five articles on Wikipedia directly related to Monstercat: Two articles for their compilation albums 001 - Launch Week, 002 - Early Stage, and three wikipedia pages for songs released on the Monstercat label: Alone, Faces, and Saving Light. Clbsfn (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - There is also a large amount of wikipedia articles on artists who have released on Monstercat, some of which include: Aero Chord, Aruna, Au5, Bassnectar, Darren Styles, Dirtyphonics, Draper, Fractal, Gareth Emery, Grabbitz, Haywyre, Jauz, Krewella, Marshmello, Mr FijiWiji, Muzzy, Nervo, Pegboard Nerds, Project 46, San Holo, Seven Lions, Slushii, Snails, Timmy Trumpet, Varien, Vicetone, and Wolfgang Gartner. Clbsfn (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - Artists who have released, collaborated, featured, or remixed on Monstercat not placed in the official Monstercat rosters, but have wikipedia articles of their own: Andy C, Cash Cash, Chali 2na, Cozi Zuehlsdorff, Dani Deahl, Ducked Ape, Eden, Elizaveta Khripounova, Excision, Getter, I See MONSTAS, Juliette Lewis, Kerli, Klaypex, Modestep, Monarchy, Morgan Page, Morten Breum, NGHTMRE, Pierce Fulton, Rusko, Talib Kweli, Taryn Manning, Teddy Killerz, Terravita, Tommie Sunshine, Virtual Riot, Xilent, and 12th Planet. Clbsfn (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - And just for the record, I'm only arguing for the existence of a wikipedia article on Monstercat, as the label is significantly notable to have its own page. What I am not defending is putting a long list of Monstercat's releases on its page. A more viable option would be to simply create categories for Monstercat albums and Monstercat songs. Clbsfn (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The entire article as a whole should not be deleted whatsoever. It should be rewritten or something along the lines of that. It is more than definitely notable enough for Wikipedia. OblivionOfficial (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - obviously notable as a record label, and meets GNG. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. What should have happened is a discussion on the talk page about whether the artist roster (it's not a discography) should be included. Does it meet WP:V? Is it a list, and therefore not everything needs an inline citation? Good points for discussion, but the article shouldn't be deleted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is notable enough to have a page. May need some editing, but that's it. Micro (Talk) 23:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would agree that this is a sufficiently notable entry per the sources. Modify to remove any aspects that may not be entirely appropriate in their current form, but keep the article. ToddLara729 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The page looks like it was cleaned up a lot. I don't know who exactly was trying to add a list of every single Monstercat release, but the nomination for deletion should be removed, and the page should be left alone with only edits to things like the history and roster. PurpleGladiator (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:BOLD redirect to International Literacy Association. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba Reading Association[edit]

Manitoba Reading Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Regional chapter of an international association. The chapter has appeerntly done little that is striking on its own -- in my view this just barely avoids an A7 speedy deletion. WP:BRANCH says: " As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Of the five currently cited sources, three are pages of the chapter's own website, and two are passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE search using google, google news, google newspapers, google scholar, and google books found nothing better. Delete, or perhaps redirect to International Reading Association, unless sources clearly establishing notability of the chapter can be provided. DES ^(talk) 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done a Redirect I also had a hard time finding good independent sources, but the size, geographical reach and longevity of the organization suggested notability. The policy at WP:BRANCH is a good solution, and one I was not aware before. Thanks for the help. I think this AfD can be closed unless someone else is passionate about the topic and wants to expand the page. If so the content is in the page history. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing a redirect is fine with me. I'll leave this open for a bit in case someone else wants to comment. DES ^(talk) 22:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene E. Jackson[edit]

Eugene E. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Eugene E. Jackson was an enlisted man with E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France (where he died of his wounds). He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under WP:SOLDIER; his early death precludes notability under WP:GNG. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is not as a major character. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't seem to meet requirements for WP:SIGCOV. Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Prinsipe Ybarro ^{(Talk to me)} 08:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with caveat - if there is a demand for information on specific members of E Company 506th PIR who are not independently notable, it may be sensible to place the information in a section on the company's own page or even create a new one. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wolfeld[edit]

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

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

The subject of this article has not itself received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

And he works for Bernstein Medical, which has had its article deleted at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernstein Medical.

And for Robert M. Bernstein, who has now three times had his article deleted. See here and most recently its G4 speedy deletion when it was recreated with the only difference being that the new editor wrote out the subject's middle name so it appeared as Robert Michael Bernstein. Very persistent. Looks like a gaming of the system.

The article was proded. But a fairly new editor removed the prod. 2604:2000:E016:A700:F993:BCA:C3F0:6EE6 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing a path to notability right now. An assistant clinical professor appointment at any medical school doesn't help to meet WP:PROF; he hasn't served as an editor-in-chief, been named to a scholarly academic society or fulfilled any of the other criteria for that guideline. Citation counts are high in clinical medicine, but this subject has written only a small handful of articles and they have hardly been cited. I'm not seeing enough independent/significant coverage to meet WP:GNG either. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment It seems that unregistered IP users from the same zip code (as checked by Geolocate) in Manhattan (or one sockpuppet) have made/are making favorable edits to one physician's page (Cameron Rokhsar) and then made/making negative edits to other NYC physician pages, even nominating them for deletion. All of these IP addresses are in the same zip code of Rokhsar's office. The nominating IP user stated above is in that same small NYC zip code as numerous different IP editor(s) that have contributed a lot of content to the Cameron Rokhsar page (which was just reverted by another user). This nomination was nominated for deletion last December from a similar IP address in the same zip code right after that user made favorable edits to Rokhsar's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:8000:ACDB:6C7A:84D5). Also, the IP addresses of December/January edits to Rokhsar's page are similar to user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E016:A700:D4E1:E2A1:3568:3C8 who had nominated several other NYC physician's pages for deletion back in December. This IP user's history in non-existent now that the pages it nominated/negatively edited have been deleted. WikiPolice2017 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP:TOOSOON per above. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banner County Wind Farm[edit]

Banner County Wind Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created in 2009 about proposed wind-power project in western Nebraska. According to a 2013 article, at that date there were no transmission lines and no plans to build any; the two developers who'd earlier expressed interest in the project had dropped out. A 2014 article in the Omaha World-Herald lists a Banner County project as one that "may be built", but says that wind-power growth in the state was slowing. The only more recent things I've found have been echoes of this WP article. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ammodramus (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom for crystal ball reasons. Even if built, would this be notable? --Lockley (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concur with above. Might not be notable even if it had been build. MB 19:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AMF Futsal Men's World Cup squads[edit]

2015 AMF Futsal Men's World Cup squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the players are notable, list is incomplete and the event has questionable notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. GiantSnowman 09:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the tournament isn't notable enough for such a list Spiderone 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the players are almost, if not entirely non-notable, so it is hard to see how a list of them could be notable enough to satisfy WP:LISTN. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Links to team articles are already at 2015 AMF Futsal Men's World Cup. This article is superfluous. South Nashua (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - completely non notable tournament/sports and players. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur Commons[edit]

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

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

Seems like a WP:PROMO for an unfinished land-development project. The article doesn't establish notability of the subject outside of simply being a land-development project in Oakland, CA. If there was something notable about construction, or additional secondary coverage of the project, maybe it would deserve a page. But as it stands, I think this fails WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This structure is not notable and is not even finished. --Lockley (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication this is anything but a wp:mill apartment building. Fails GNG. MB 17:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that there are not currently sufficient sources for an article, but it may be recreated if more are found.  Sandstein  09:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odiyan[edit]

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

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

The article was PRODded for several days, and has no sources, but I am still hesitant to delete it without a community discussion. The terms Odiyan, or odi vidya (which seems to be equivalent) provide quite some search results, but I can not find any reliable sources. May be users more familiar with Indian topics could help. Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Odiyan is a local folklore which gained currency after a movie with the name starring a prominent actor was announced. Some insights into the myth is provided in announcements about the movie - here, here and here among other links. However the entire article is composed of original research or sourced from non reliable sites. Searching in Malayalam does not yield any better results as well and therefore a deletion till more details emerge (which probably will if the movie starts shooting) may be in order. Jupitus Smart 04:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've found several references such as this one. Whether or not this is notable and worth an article I can't say, and the article as is needs a good pruning, but the underlying concept is legit. --Lockley (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 10:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

María Almenta[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. Non notable BLP article about model. scope_creep (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Fails WP:BIO Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Independent, significant reliable source coverage in El Mundo, El Espanol, and Hola!, among others. Per WP:NONENG, these are allowable and should be acceptable sources for WP:GNG purposes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't have any Spanish but I'm accepting on good faith and Google Translate that the links provided by User:Eggishorn cover this person to an acceptable level of detail to get them past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iced Earth (album)[edit]

Iced Earth (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG no references and my Google search found only one WP:RS: http://www.allmusic.com/album/iced-earth-reissue-mw0000675161. I found http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-reckoning-ep-mw0000326194 but it has no review (just a database entry) and http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/iced-earth-the-reckoning-single-to-surface-in-early-october/ (which is a user review) Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It doesn't help that those mutthonheads named the album after themselves, so not helping with Google searching, but I found this review. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lugnuts: I found that Sputnik user review too. It's not a professional review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Feed the Machine. Limited merge -- don't include the table of dates and cities -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feed the Machine Tour[edit]

Feed the Machine Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable tour, PROD rejected Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or just redirect if there's not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I would also be on board with a redirect (or a merge). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nickelback. Per WP:NTOUR, all concert tours that exist do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just to list the tour dates, the end; to qualify for a standalone article as a separate topic from the band, a concert tour needs to contain reliably sourced analysis of its impact. (For example, The Tragically Hip have undertaken many concert tours in the past that didn't warrant and don't have their own standalone articles — but last year's Man Machine Poem Tour cleared the bar as a special case, boy howdy did it ever, and even then the article didn't actually exist until a week after the tour had ended.) But that's not present here; the content amounts to "the tour is happening, here's a list of the venues, the end", and the sourcing is a mix of primary sources and routine coverage of the initial tour announcement, with no evidence of any reliably sourced analysis of the tour's financial or artistic impact (and none even possible at this time, since the tour isn't even starting for another month yet.) So no prejudice against recreation in the late summer or fall if some of the necessary depth of media coverage about the tour can be shown, but nothing that can be said about it as of today already earns it a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Feed the Machine. More specific destination than the band, and the album article can contain some more information about the tour than it currently has. feminist 11:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @Feminist:, with the number tours that Nickelback does, I agree with a merge to Feed the Machine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am leaning toward a merge of everything to Feed the Machine, except for the cities and tour dates. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NCONCERT and WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music[edit]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is a music school for which I am unable to locate in depth coverage in reliable sources. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Google search revealed such hits as: 4 square, face book, yelp, and local directories. There were hits for "Royal Conservatory of Music", but that is a different entity. Some performers listed subject among venues in tours and CV's. There are Google books hits for books credited to subject, and some books that include subject in lists. There is no substantial coverage. WP:Gale search was also unavailing through my library. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's really no content here. If the article creator can dig up significant profiles about the school in major newspapers, it is probably notable. Not much worth saving at the moment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- advocacy, being cited only to the org itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The school is legit enough to be officially recognized (to some extent) by the province. There's no sign of notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bedowyn[edit]

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Not a single independent reference produced. Searches yield nothing of worth other than social media and self promotion and directory listing, Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - There are sources. They range from the niche, to the niche and probably unreliable, completely indeterminate reliability, the decidedly local, and whatever this is. But I'm not really seeing much that manages to be in depth, reliable, and broad in scope all at the same time. Probably still slightly too soon. No prejudice against recreation if the sources improve over the next year or so. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, promotional, not encyclopedic. --Lockley (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - there is some coverage, but I'm still not certain how much that counts here. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a nn band. Having a song included in a video game is hardly a claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Oppenheim[edit]

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

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

This attorney does not appear to meet notability requirements. The closest thing to claims of notability are that he was "part of the team that took the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. case to the Supreme Court" and was involved in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

A look at the Supreme Court opinion in the Grokster case shows that he was not the lead attorney; the lead attorney was Donald B. Verrilli. Oppenheim was just one of the team of eighteen lawyers who contributed to the brief.

A look at the First Circuit opinion in the Tenenbaum case shows that he wasn't lead counsel in that case, either; that was Paul D. Clement. Again, Oppenheim was one of six lawyers on the brief. The Tenenbaum could be a reference to the district court portion of the case, rather than the appeal, which is much less notable, at least from a legal point of view (generally, district courts don't set precedents, especially where the court's finding is appealed, as here; opinions in appeals do), but if so, that's unsourced and difficult to verify, and in any event doesn't amount to notability anyway. (The text of the article suggests he may have had more involvement at the district court proceeding; but somewhat confusingly, the link is to the article on the appeal rather than to the article on the district court proceeding.)

The article has no references, as such. It does have two external links, though: Copyright Conundrum and [1]. If considered references, these might save this from WP:BLPPROD; but both are dead links. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per breath-takingly lengthy nom.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the nom pretty much covered all the bases.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested deletion request. Can be userfied, etc. on request.  Sandstein  09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness in children[edit]

Happiness in children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

More essay than article, not sure how it can stand as a stand alone topic when it seems to be a synthesis of sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Going to suggest, in spirit of compromise, kicking this back to Draft. Give it some number of months for development there. Given to understand that Draft articles with no progress made automatically see deletion in some number of months. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • I didn't even notice the first AFD, part of the problem of patrolling at work, get distracted. Regardless, I don't have a problem with it going to Draft, although I don't have high hope it will leave there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was hoping that the student would improve the work but didn't. Since the class is officially over, I unfortunately don't think that it will be likely that they will return, if they didn't for the first AfD. Unless someone here wants to take on this draft as a project, deletion looks to be somewhat more certain in this scenario. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yōhei Tadano[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable voice actor, listed as a main supporting in Hime-sama Goyojin, and supporting character Shigemori Sumimura in Kekkaishi, that is not enough to meet WP:ENT. Everything else is minor/guest characters galore. No news articles in ANN. Seems to have some coverage in JA wikipedia, but not referenced very well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There aren't any notable voice dubbing roles here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not from looking at ANN [2] which usually highlights starring or supporting roles. From that list you can see they're mainly episodics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - looks like he has had some major voice dubbing roles, including Yoda in one of the star wars movies. Would definitely be a major role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources to back that up? I'm not talking just a cast announcement, but anything to show that this voice would meet WP:GNG? Also Yoda's role in Force Awakens was a cameo / bit part. [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't comment on how significant his roles are, but we are lacking in sources, and a quick online search didn't turn up any significant coverage. The Japanese Wikipedia has quite a few Japanese language sources, but most of them appear to be just cast list announcements or WP: PRIMARY sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Ohlsen[edit]

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

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

This page does not meet the notability guidelines for biographies, and does not cite any reliable references for its information. My online searches have revealed no new sources or information that would resolve these issues. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I tried to tackle this as I felt he must be notable, but I can't uncover sources that cover him with more than a passing mention. There's a lot of "noise" around the Munch exhibit of which he was co curator, but no depth. StarM 01:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Change to keep per DDG's confirmation re: pubs and WP: Prof. I'll try to find some sources to solve the BLPProd issue Mduvekot. StarM 01:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design. Quite a few GNews hits actually but like Star Mississippi I cannot find anything more deep than passing coverage. However, he is the director of a clearly notable museum and his name might be a plausible search term, so I propose redirecting there per WP:ATD-R. Regards SoWhy 08:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is he a director or a curator? Major language issues as Karl_Twist (talk · contribs) noted below, but this is perhaps the most confounding. The list of directors in the museum's article doesn't include him and it seems in some of what I found that he might be a curator. I'm also pinging DGG (talk · contribs) who knows the professor side well and may be able to help with some of that. All that said, redirect also makes sense StarM 01:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, he has made a lot of contributions to various publications as well been referenced often. Doesn't help that much of what's useful is in German. The problem here is that the page needs to be referenced properly as well as tidied up. Karl Twist (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Senior curator and scholar. The publications clearly meet WP:PROF. It's absurd that this was even challenged. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is still a biography of a living person without any references, and as such it remains eligible for deletion per WP:BLPPROD. The simple solution would be to just add references to independent, reliable sources. Can someone do that please? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done with artnet. Going to try and find a German speaking member of WP:Museums. StarM 01:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The artnet ref has the same content as a webpage of the Neue Galerie. Not a WP:IS Mduvekot (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this though. That's from the dpa, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, which is a solid source. Mduvekot (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this and this. But even with those sources I still can't figure out what his title is. Curator is not wrong, so perhaps go with that. Mduvekot (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Director has too many meanings in English, let alone when someone is trying to write this in the context of translating German and Norwegian museum duties to an English speaking audience. I think that Director may be akin to a senior curatorial role, but not director as in Executive and/or member of the museum's board of directors. Thanks for catch re: artnet, hadn't noticed that it was likely a reprint of a press release. WorldCat has some of his books so we can verify their existence, but nothing of note in them. StarM

The dpa source mentions him taking the job. The taz one is a portrait of him (weird that I didn't find it) as the new curator of the part of the national gallery that contains art from the romanticism to 1950. The third ref mentions him only in passing in the context of a Munch exhibit. Regards SoWhy 10:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrin O. Soriano[edit]

Aldrin O. Soriano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a municipal councillor, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL. This has significant overtones of résumé (as opposed to encyclopedic) presentation, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that cannot assist in demonstrating notability with very little evidence of reliable source coverage provided. As always, municipal councillors are not automatically accepted as notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be demonstrated and sourced as significantly more notable than the norm for their role for a Wikipedia article to become earned, but nothing here demonstrates or sources that. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Coverage insufficient to meet GNG. Looks like a promo piece for a NN politician.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, plus this may be a paid creation of article. Ptrck.dgzmn, who created this, must be notified of possible conflict of interest, that he must disclose on his user page by policy.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the user about possible COI, see here.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the author is paid, they should edit professionally to conform to Wikipedia style. Boldface the topic in the lead sentence, and section headings in sentence case, per MOS:SECTION. Invalid use of DISPLAYTITLE, too. wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Water[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability for a company that seems to have had an article for a while yet garnered no reliable sources. Looks like just another bottled water company, albeit it one with a philanthropic heart. Regrettably philanthropy doesn't get you notability on Wikipedia. Would have been a potential candidate for speedy deletion but there have been many editors in its life. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NoteThe references for the philanthropy are all dead and the company makes no mention of such beneficence on its web-site. I think that it is fair to assume that this was a marketing ploy - perhaps to gain notability here.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is neither a marketing nor an advocacy platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Should future events unfold and sources appear to establish WP:N, this can be created, and the existing text restored for a starting point. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishk Sajnani[edit]

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

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

Appear to be a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject also lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails the general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Sanghvi940940 (talk · contribs) (the creator of this article) and two others are confirmed sockpuppet of Sanghvi6722 (talk · contribs) please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanghvi6722. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete- not seeing an assertion of significance. Even if we grant that, WP:BLP! comes into play. Beyond that, insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject may be covered in a Single event but his contributions made to cyber security are quiet notable. Chances are, he'll be back in the news soon. If this article gets deleted, the editor may have to go through the pain of writing the whole thing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeshna3194 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC) — Ayeshna3194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article is a hagiography that misrepresents the sources. There's no indication the subject is notable. Huon (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no assertion of significance. does not meet GNG w/ lack of in depth coverage. WP:BLP1E applies,Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:BLOWITUP Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Adamescu[edit]

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

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

this article would require a total rewrite to be acceptable. it is much too detailed and is clearly an advocacy article. Fails WP:NOTADVOCATE Domdeparis (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Half the sources, such as they are, deal with the subject's father. The other half are mostly editorials and position papers. Alexander may deserve a line or two in the article on Dan, but nothing really suggests he's independently notable. Anyway, the article as it stands is fatally flawed, an endless screed against the Romanian government, so WP:BLOWITUP applies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To delete, but consensus that, if at all, this should be covered together with Draft:HESS J1857+0263.  Sandstein  09:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PSR J1856+0245[edit]

PSR J1856+0245 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As far as I can tell, this fails WP:NASTCRIT, because other than what's in the article the only other related article I can find is doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118685, which is really more about HESS J1857+026. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Primefac: There are a few other articles mentioning this pulsar that are listed here, but there aren't many on this object at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found a few of those, but the issue is (per CRIT #3) it's being mentioned as part of a general survey of 35 or 200 sources. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• CooperScience, creator of this article says:

There's a whole detailed paper about this pulsar that can be found with the following link: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/590908/fulltext/22902.text.html

I made this article because there is a lot of information about this pulsar, which is young, energetic, and somewhat unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CooperScience (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-WP:NOTNOWCurrently it is too early to determine if star is unique or not .May acquire notability latter due to more detailed survey⭐FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 07:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination. Essentially the only paper about this object is the discovery paper. It is mentioned in a number of other articles as one of many, but that isn't enough to meet WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable and only one paper describes it. Σεμέλη Στεφανίδου (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are actually several papers about this particular pulsar/source, sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This is not just a run of the mill pulsar. It is also known as HESS J1857+026 or HESS J1857+0263 which is a gamma ray source. see https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118685 http://tevcat.uchicago.edu/?mode=1;id=278 https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/pages/home/som/2008/07/ a book paragraph: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jCPn3v-o_KoC&pg=PA205 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what we really need is an article about HESS J1857+0263? Lithopsian (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's the list of HESS J1857 papers. There are a few more papers specifically on the gamma ray source, as @Graeme Bartlett: says. I'm not !voting, as I'm not sure where the notability border lies here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess that becomes the issue, though. The PSR seems to be a relatively non-notable pulsar, but the HES associated with it is potentially notable. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Primefac: In that case, why not have an article on the HESS source, with a subsection on the PSR, and a redirect from the current article title to that subsection? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine by me. I've got some time today, so I'll see about whipping something up. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've created Draft:HESS J1857+0263, and I'm starting to become concerned that it, too, fails WP:NASTCRIT. While the link you give above gives a large number of references, all but three (the current ref in PSR J1856+0245 and the first two refs in the draft) seem to only be [mentions] alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties.... The third ref in the draft is maybe the closest they come to specific coverage, but even that isn't much more than "here are some odd PWNe and some facts about them." Primefac (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        For reference, the three sources I'm referring to are [4], [5], and [6], with [7] being the borderline case. I'll keep working on it, and see where the rabbit hole leads. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        • Yes, those three papers do seem to be the main ones about the source (they're the only ones that mention the source in the title in the list I linked to). Whether enough 3 specific papers + mentions in other papers is enough to determine notability, I don't know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The existence of several papers is sufficient tojstify the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I know I keep mentioning this but... which papers? Most of them are about the HESS source (or simply list the PSR in a massive list of similar sources, which contravenes WP:NASTCRIT #3). Primefac (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're probably right--I forgot. It should be retitled for now at least. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Get Weird. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grown (Little Mix Song)[edit]

Grown (Little Mix Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Song is not notable; does not have significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. All content in this page is already in the main Get Weird album article, save for an unnotable one-line review that is just part of a track-by-track album review. Title has inappropriate capitalisation that does not follow WP:MOS, and there is already a Grown (Little Mix song) redirect page, hence this page is not useful as a redirect either. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Get Weird just as Grown (Little Mix song) was redirected. This is simply an alternative capitalization of that title. Redirects are cheap, and they don't necessarily have to follow WP:TITLE. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per KuyaBriBri. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Same like above. Raritydash (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here are some sources that cover the song outside of album reviews, but I am not certain and a little doubtful about whether or not they are enough to support notability. I just wanted to present some sources to help with this a little: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. A majority of the coverage for the song appears to be restricted to album reviews so I would lean more towards a redirect as well, but I think I will stay out of the voting process on this one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per the arguments already made above and per the nominator. I do not believe the above sources that I provided support that this has enough notability for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – has independent notability and per Aoba47's citations. Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect per the arguments made above, and per the nominator. livelikemusic talk! 22:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above and nom. Domdeparis (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Aunty Jack Show. After the merge, redirect for the reasons outlined by SpinningSpark -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Channel Nine Show[edit]

The Channel Nine Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Iron Maiden Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Golden Glove Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Ear Nose and Throat Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Little Lovelies Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aunty Jack's Travelling Show: these are five more episodes of the same series which were created after that discussion was initiated, but did not get caught or bundled into the original batch in time. But they're still subject to the same problems as the first set: they offer no substance or sourcing to demonstrate the standalone notability of each episode, and are referenced entirely to episode guides and IMDb, rather than reliable source media coverage about the episodes. As always, every individual episode of a TV series is not granted an automatic presumption of standalone notability as a separate topic -- you need to show quite a lot more real-world context about the episode to get it over the bar, not just a basic plot summary. Many TV programs only have one or two episodes that actually warrant standalone articles separately from the series as a whole, and many more than that have none. What's required to get an episode over the bar in its own right is reliable source coverage that's specifically about that episode itself -- but none is being shown for any of these. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all of them - I didn't see the first AfD; sorry. The Aunty Jack Show was as notable in Australia, in its day, as Seinfeld or The Simpsons. We have articles on every episode of those two shows. Aunty Jack should not be given less treatment because it is Australian, or was on TV before the Internet age. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of television shows do not have separate articles about each individual episode. What determines whether that gets to happen or not is whether enough reliable sources cover the episode in enough depth to give it context for why a separate article is needed — mere plot summaries and cast lists simply do not cut it. The Puppy Episode of Ellen, for example, is the only episode of its entire series that actually has (or ever will have) its own standalone article — and it qualified for one not because it existed, but because it's been extensively analyzed by reliable sources as one of the most overarchingly important moments in the entire history of LGBT representation in media. The standard that a television episode has to meet to qualify for a separate article is "noteworthy and substantive context", not "IMDb verifies that it existed". Yes, there are a few shows (Seinfeld and The Simpsons are two examples; Star Trek is another one) that have been so extensively written about by reliable sources that almost every episode can actually support a standalone article — but that's not a treatment that any show automatically gets just because of one user's subjective assertions of importance, it's a treatment that reliable source coverage about the episodes has to be there to support. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into The Aunty Jack Show then delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, merge and redirect, the substantive content of all these articles is just a couple of sentences, so they can easily be accomadated in the main article. I don't get why User:Dennis Brown is calling for delete after merge. First of all, the history needs retaining for attribution reasons after a merge, and secondly redirects are cheap and these will help anyone searching on an episode title to find the right place. SpinningSpark 12:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be agreement that the (now much-expanded) content about this museum item should be kept, but it's not yet clear whether it should be merged somewhere or otherwise made part of a broader article. These discussions can continue outside of this AfD.  Sandstein  09:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art)[edit]

Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this individual object is notable - sources provided are from the museum which holds it. Wikipedia cannot hold descriptions of every museum collection item in the world. PROD was contested by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Museum. PamD 17:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i agree we need a high bar for notibility on costume items in museums, but I believe this item may qualify if the article is expanded. Can you give me a few days to collect some research? - PKM (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion normally lasts at least a week. I can see the argument that a museum object can be notable in the same way as an individual painting in a gallery - but as you say there needs to be quite a high bar so that we don't get every museum catalogue dumped into the encyclopedia. Good luck in finding some independent sources to support this garment's notability. PamD 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article significantly, and added references and many wikilinks. Let me know how you feel about these changes. -PKM (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I de-PROD'ed to allow a chance for discussion and further development, which seems to me appropriate. I don't think that we should have articles on every object in a museum collection, but this one does have a fair amount of scholarly WP:RS published on it, way beyond an entry in a museum catalogue. I'm not sure of what the answer ultimately should be, but I do think it's worth considering it as an art object, either by itself, or as part of a slightly broader cultural topic.--Pharos (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There has been a significant amount of reliable source commentary about this particular caftan as evidenced by the improvements to the article and supporting references. Nice job. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but with concerns about implications - see comment) - Hmmm. Keep does set a pretty dangerous precedent, for exactly the concerns I had with an earlier AFD that I opened for discussion - while very specific, individual museum exhibits (that aren't typical artworks) are notable (such as Tristan Quilt or Margaret Layton's embroidered jacket or Luck of Edenhall - these are very exceptional instances. (I also thought of the Tarkhan dress but that article is very minimal, although the object itself is indisputably notable). This is "my area of specialism" - being clothing/fashion related - and I'm dubious about it because of these reasons. I vote keep, because I feel obligated to do so based on the article and that it is something sort of approaching my area of specialism, but I am aware that this will potentially make it fair game to flood Wikipedia with articles on every single thing from museum catalogues that has been discussed in multiple sources. I think notability for this garment as a very rare survival of its type has been demonstrated beyond doubt. However, if kept it will need to be renamed so as not to confuse it with the 100+ other caftans in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum. Has this caftan a "name?" Is it called, say, the Moshchevaja Balka Caftan? Perhaps someone should create Moshchevaja Balka burial to discuss the archaeological site and the artefacts found therein, and have a chapter/section there specifically for this caftan as a notable artefact found therein? Mabalu (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mabalu:. Did you notice sourcing is entirely PRIMARY, to journals published by the Met (and 2 cites sourcing info about the type, not the specific object). Would you consider supporting a redirect to a new article about archaeologically discovered textiles or garments along the silk road? (you would know how to phrase/delimit such an articls better than I.) Because, as you say, keeping articles about objects sources exclusively to the museum that owns them is a highly problematic precedent to set.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the abobe: I'm not really bothered about primary sourcing in cases such as this, because major museums are usually really reliable sources even if technically there is a conflict of interest. They're not trying to sell a viewpoint or sell their stuff, they just want to share their research and findings and more-than-usually-informed interpretations of objects they have, from an expert's point of view. So no, in this circumstance, the COI doesn't really bother me. Mabalu (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the naming question, drawing from examples in a different medium, one could include the accession number., as in Neck Amphora by Exekias (Berlin F 1720). The new title could be Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1) or Caftan from Caucasus region (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1996.78.1). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vases are often referred to in this way, like manuscripts; generally catalogue/accession numbers are best avoided in titles, as no-one even in the field will recognize them. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article could gave a stronger name. Thinking about what it should be called .... - PKM (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep (as expanded) any reasonably complete 1200-year-old garment from anywhere is very likely to be notable, for heaven's sake, as they are so rare. Personally I am in favour of decent articles on individual examples of all sorts of artefacts. There is in fact no "danger" here, as very few people write such articles. Note that the entire Category:Individual garments tree has (I think) under 10 ordinary textile garments from before 1900 (excluding armour, crowns etc) for all world history! You will find the same very sparse coverage in most "Individual foo" categories. If you want silly over-coverage in museum areas look at paintings and biblical manuscripts. Yes, a more specific name would be better. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The problem with this article is that it is trying to do too much, covering both what a caftan is and one fine example of one in a museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, following article expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep As above, any object like this, 1200-year-old - rare as hen's teeth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Because the article is entirely PRIMARY sourced (correction: lacks WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing) (with the exception of 2 sources that describe this category of garment, not the garment itself). I love articles on individual museum objects such as the Arles Rhône 3 or the Magdala stone, but objects require secondary sourcing. Here we have only the Museum's own curators and journals. I think we need to Redirect and merge to an article on something like Ancient textiles of the silk road.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not WP:PRIMARY at all, but they do lack full independence. However, this is normal in articles on museum objects, where the best sources are very often provided by the museum, although often only as publisher, with the authors outside experts. There is no precedent being set here; instead the normal practice is being followed. In the case of very large and reputable museums like the MMA, the community is rightly ready to accept that good scholarly standards are being followed. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cited are scholarly, but they are published in the journal of the Museum that owns the object. Notability needs to be supported by sources that are independent of the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. That's what I'm saying. Btw, Knauer at least does not seem to have been a museum employee. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnblod, you are aware that the Met Journal commissions such articles, not for pay, rather, the Museum invites scholarly experts to come to the museum in order to examine a specific object and write it up for the journal? All perfectly scholarly and legit, just not independent.(private but widely understood info among museum professionals; no I don't have a source for this assertion. I just know how this journal works.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course. And I am aware of the standards WP normally applies for such articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not questioning the scholarship, only WP:INDY. I have brought this question to [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Conflicts of interest "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And as per: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a conflict of interest, but COI's can be managed, and the MMA's standards, like those of other major museums, are such that it can reasonably be assumed that they have been. If there was a decent name to use as a search term it is very possible other sources would turn up. There may well be ones in Russian, but that's little help to most of us. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect target? Unless notability can be WP:INDEPENDENTLY sourced, I suggest that this discussion focus on finding an appropriate target for a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per E.M. Gregory. Sources most affiliated with the subject. Also agreeing with Peterkingiron's comment that most of the article expanded version does not deal with that particular caftan but with caftans in similar contexts. Hence, the deadly blow to Wikipedia's general architecture, that keeping such a page would mean. A peril that Mabalu explains very well in his comment. darthbunk pakt dunft 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is a cogent, interesting, appropriately sourced article, exactly what I think of as "encyclopedic". The concerns about COI and independent sources are valid -- but unavoidable with many many objects of antiquity. @PKM:'s work here to expand the article is solid. The article should be renamed per comments above. --Lockley (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suspend WP:GNG for "objects of antiquity". I paraphrase Lockley and most of the editors above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's accept, at least prima facie, the "independence" or ability to manage COI of major museums. In fact we do this all all the time, for example for all types of information put out by government-run or financed organizations. It's a great mistake to prefer, as many editors do, garbled summaries of the same information scribbled down by "independent" journalists. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I also prefer the scholarship of scholars, including scholars employed or commissioned to evaluate artifacts by museums. However, we absolutely require WP:INDEPENDENT sources to establish notability.as I and others suggest above, this material can be WP:PRESERVED by merged this to a broader topic with INDEPENDENT sourcing in re: notability..E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTABILITY is clear on this, notability is evidenced by independent sources. This has nothing to do with reliability, scholarly etc etc. And there is not enough independent sourcing here to pass WP:GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - lack of independence does not cause this article to violate our key policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, in my opinion. The completeness and tone of the article shows that the subject can be encyclopedic without OR. Also, the MET Museum Journal is an edited journal with a review process standard to academic journals. The editorial board is all(?) MET department members, none of which are the authors of the articles on the Caftan. Two of the three authors are, however, connected to the MET. Harper is Curator Emerita in the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Kajitani is conservator in chief of the Department of Textile Conservation. Knauer was not at the Met and was a leader at the Penn museum (her husband was Georg Nicolaus Knauer). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Metropolitan Museum Journal is issued annually by The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Its purpose is to publish original research on works in the Museum’s collections." [9]. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Saying independence is required as you did further above and repeat here, does fit with what WP:IS says, but every time that essay says that, it refers to WP:RS, and to me the MET Museum Journal is a reliable source. I guess my argument is based on WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The article doesn't violate, for example, WP:USESPS, and is more or less a secondary source based on WP:PSTS/WP:USEPRIMARY. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kaftan, the existing article on the garment. Those who advocated for "keep" above have not addressed the "independent of the subject" clause of the general notability guideline. This is a common problem among the many articles recently created for objects in the Met's collection following the Met's open access image release. No one is questioning the garment's importance, but how should it be covered? If the Met-specific garment is only covered in Met-specific sources, it would show that the object is only of importance to the Met. If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications—that is the intent of the "independent" clause. (Please ping me if you find more of those sources!) As it stands, most of the article is about the general use of the caftan, as @Peterkingiron noted, and as such, can be reasonably covered in the general article on caftans. (The Met journals are also fine sources for the general article, with no issues of independence because the article's subject isn't the Met-specific caftan.) If and when the garment, in specific, becomes separately notable from the general history of the garment, as shown in reliable sources independent of the subject, it can always split out summary style.  czar 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The independence issue has been extensively addressed above, it's just there is not agreement on the matter. Several people are "questioning the garment's importance" - what exactly is the difference between notability and importance? To say "If it was of wider importance to other scholars, we would have more sources about the garment from other publications" - by which you effectively mean more publications available online in English - shows a misplaced faith, in particular given that the garment only reached the market in 1994, and that in this obscure field most publications are in Russian and German, like the large books on textile finds from this site by Ierusalimskaja, which no one involved in the debate has seen (in Russian and German). I don't see how "most of the article is about the general use of the caftan" at all, and this article would unbalance a shortish article about this very broad term, which is unspecific, not to say vague, like "robe" or "coat" in European clothing. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed, not addressed. If there is some litany of Russian/German sources that address the garment in detail, they are not mentioned in the article. All the other sources are affiliated with the Met, the organization that also holds the garment, making it (and those those articles) non-independent. If the article was on the burial or series of findings there, source independence would not be an issue. czar 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (did not vote above)Restructure -- The suggested merge target is a wide-ranging article, which would be unbalanced by a standard merger. Furthermore that article states that the Russian version differs from those of other countries some as far afield as Senegal. The Met Journal looks like an academic journal, probably peer-reviewed, and may therefore be sufficiently independent (though I have not investigated closely). I would suggest that we keep a short article on the Met garment itself and merge a summary of the rest into Kaftan. Nevertheless, we should not encourage articles on every museum object. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that the Met Jornal appears once a year, with 12-14 articles. The museum contains over 2 million objects, so most will have to wait millennia for their turn. Yet this object has had three different articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments and proposal. Well, this has all been most instructive. Comments first, and then a proposal.
  • Comments: (1) If this article had first been moved to main space in its current form, I doubt that anyone would have raised objections to its structure, focus, or sourcing. I am well aware that it is far from perfect - I have dug very deep looking for additional discussions of this object, to no avail. (2) It's news to me that a section on "background" or "context" for a highly-specific topic is inappropriate. Given an encyclopedia that has essentially infinite page space and infinite entry points, establishing context seems critical to me. (3) I believe articles on historical and cultural topics are once again being held to a higher standard than articles on other topics. How many articles on spacecraft do we have that are based solely on NASA documents? (Note, I think there's nothing wrong with that.) (4) I think establishing a standard in support of the independence of scholarly work published by or on behalf of museums is important, but I don't this AfD discussion is the place where that can happen.
  • Proposal. I suggest that this article be moved to Moshchevaja Balka textiles and expanded to include the leggings at the Met and anything we can properly source on the related items in the Hermitage, with the caftan cited as a representative example. We can also expand Silk Road which doesn't mention the North Caucasus route at all currently, and possibly trim the "Context" section after. Would these changes satisfy the outstanding objections? - PKM (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the best merge/repurpose proposal, though I'd be interested to see how the current nom will do at closing. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'd prefer to keep as a standalone article, with a possible more descriptive rename to North Caucasus caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) (especially as the link to Moshchevaja Balka is based on a very educated scholarly deduction and not a documented chain of custody to an excavation). - PKM (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Rename Moshchevaja Balka burial, as suggested above by User:Mabalu would enable us to source the article to sources like this book on the silk road [10]. 'Note two things about that reference to the burial: First, that this source does not mention this caftan, only that silks were found in the burial. Second, that it is only one of the many preserved remnants of ancient garments found along the silk road in recent year. I want to Note also that this significant object is very far from being as unique as some editorial assert above. Garments have emerged from digs not only along the silk road, but out of the tundra, from European bogs, and from deserts; the Met itself owns a spectacular collection of ancient garments from Roman era Egyptian burials (i.e. older than this garment) that were previously held by the Brooklyn Museum. Certainly we should have articles on these things, but they need solid INDEPENDENT sourcing just as all articles do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Preserve content. There's not a standardized, catchy, one-word answer to how I think this needs to be handled. The current article is problematic. It approaches this topic from its perspective as a museum exhibit. Accordingly, the academic journal sponsored by the museum to publish research about its exhibits strains the definition of sources "independent" of the subject. But of course, what is important and notable about this object is not that it is a museum exhibit per se, but that it represents an archaeologically significant textile discovery from an archaeologically significant Silk Road burial site. The information here (absent some of the backgrounder on the definition of a caftan) is best served in an article at a different title. Moshchevaja Balka burial is my preferred choice, which also allows us to include other information about the site, its history, its discover, and so forth... Moshchevaja Balka textiles is a narrower topic that also seems plausible if there are other sources that specifically address the textiles at length. I'd rather we start with the former and spin out the latter if that proves necessary. Something like Silk Road archaeology is a broader alternative if Moshchevaja Balka lacks supporting sources. This approach solves the independence problem; the subject is no longer a specific item qua museum exhibit, and so the non-independence of the current sourcing evaporates. It also avoids the uncomfortable suggestion that articles on every individual museum holding might in and of themselves be plausible. This isn't strictly a redirect, and since the target article doesn't exist yet, can't in good faith by called a merge. Fundamentally though, our goal should be to keep the encyclopedic content, but not here and not precisely like this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Moshchevaja Balka burial allows wider information, but who exactly is the "us" who's going to write it? Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Like PKM, I'd prefer to keep it as it is (as !voted above) but Moshchevaja Balka textiles is certainly better than deletion. But who will write the broader content, to do which properly Russian or German are really necessary? The article is now greatly improved since nomination, and the nom arguments now I think don't apply. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• An expanded Moshchevaja Balka article would be fine for details on the excavation, caftan, other items, but since it doesn't exist, I have to stick with the merge recommendation as the article's sources are not independent (all affiliated with the Met, the garment's holder). A merge, I'll add, also preserves the article history for anyone who wants to excavate it. Speaking of, want to drop some sources for this burial so we can stub it and call it a day? czar 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that this artefact has been the sole subject of multiple scholarly papers is a strong indicator of notability (and I'd certainly expect a perfectly preserved garment from the 8th century to be notable!). I appreciate the concerns about the independence of these sources—I can't find any indication that the Metropolitan Museum Journal is peer reviewed and its editorial board all work at the Met—but let's be pragmatic here. We require independent sources to protect the encyclopaedia from promotionalism and misinformation disseminated by people with an axe to grind. The Met, one of the world's foremost museums, has nothing to gain from misrepresenting objects in its collection in its in-house journal. And I highly doubt it gets any promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation. The journal may not be technically independent, but it fits the spirit of the independence criteria in the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I interrupt this discussion to Note that museums do in fact covet "promotional value from specialist articles in a scholarly journal with small circulation." Museums are not so unlike other institutions. They can fail (see Category:Defunct art museums and galleries), even major art museums in wealthy cities can fail (see:Corcoran Gallery of Art, not to mention the Met's current, massive financial problems. Museums compete for scholarly prestige not least because it attracts loans, curators, visiting scholars and, most of all, donors of both cash and artifacts. Note moreover that this article was promoted and (deprodded) by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Met who ought at that moment to have insisted that it either find an WP:INDEPENDENT source or be included within a topic that has secondary sourcing. A small slip by someone who contributes a lot to the project, but surely an indication of the ease with which great institutions and the Wikipedians associated with them can too easily regard themselves as above the rules that apply to lesser mortals. It is problematic to have a "Wikipedian in residence" at a museum arguing to "keep" [11] an article sourced solely to a journal published by that museum. Would we feel differently about a single-artifact article sole sourced to articles in The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, a highly regarded publication of the highly regarded - but small - Wolfsonian-FIU? WP:INDEPENDENT is an important rule. We need to apply it here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Wikimedian in Residence at the museum, and I had deprodded it, because I felt it deserved a full AfD discussion, but have abstained from a "keep" or "delete" here. FWIW, I think this is a general issue of sourcing to museum journals, and that principles should be applied uniformly, not just to the larger ones.--Pharos (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that a PROD was too aggressive. Certainly WP:PRESERVE this well-sourced material. But can you specify what principles should apply to museum journals?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)(I never miss visiting the Wolfsonian when I'm in South Beach, and certainly regard The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, as a WP:RS. But I do not think we should WP:IAR and keep any article single sourced to the journal of the museum that holds it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that WP:IAR applies here. WP:INDEPENDENT is an important rule, but applying it pedantically here would be a net loss for the encyclopaedia. Does anyone actually think there is something wrong with the material in the article cited to the Met's journal? – Joe (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Now can we return to considering whether to WP:PRESERVE this material by merging it into something focal like Moshchevaja Balka textiles, Moshchevaja Balka or Moshchevaja Balka burial or into something broad like Silk Road archaeology, or Ancient textiles of the silk road.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're here to consider whether the article should be deleted. Keeping it in its current form is a viable option – one which so far the majority of editors have supported. Please don't try to restrict the discussion to your preferred outcomes, E.M.Gregory. – Joe (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a majority vote, it's a discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is trying to delete it. Only to avoid the precedent that would be set by keeping an article about an object sourced solely to an organ of the museum that owns it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note my citation above of the fact that while the Metropolitan Museum Journal i sscholarly, it only publishes articles about objects owned by the Metropolitan Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: as the PRODder and then AfD nominator, I feel I should add something to this lengthy and thoughtful discussion. When I PRODded the article with rationale "It's an interesting object but nothing indicates that it is notable in Wikipedia terms: the encyclopedia can't reproduce the museum catalogue of every museum in the world.", it was a very few sentences, sourced to the museum record and one of the journal articles. I was probably alerted to it by noticing it as an item in Category:Stubs with a bracketed disambiguator - while stub-sorting I often check these to make sure that they are accessible from their undisambiguated title, via a hatnote or dab page entry. I've just added a rather ungainly "redirect" hatnote to Kaftan. I am amazed that this object, if it is such a treasure of the museum, does not have a popular name like the Lewis chessmen - but perhaps it is more of a scholars' object than a museum visitors' attraction. Clearly this object is of scholarly significance, but I wonder how anyone is likely to find it in the encyclopedia - the article is not linked from any mainspace pages, though from a vast number of internal Wikipedia pages. I am not a textile history or museology expert so find it hard to opine on the notability of this object. The article as it currently stands appears to be of encyclopedic value, and we need to somehow establish criteria so that items on well-documented and extraordinary objects can be retained, while WikiMedians in Residence and others are deterred from copying large chunks of their catalogue records into the encyclopedia (Tall-stem thermometers?). PamD 22:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in some form (!vote of nominator): On consideration of the arguments above, I think that the museum's journal, while not strictly "independent", is a valid source: the museum's own regard for its reputation will ensure that only quality scholarly papers are published in it. I have concerns about the article title, but the object is almost certainly "notable" and merits coverage in our encyclopedia - whether as this stand-alone article or as a section of Moshchevaja Balka burial site or similar. PamD 22:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 10:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RDX (Band)[edit]

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

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

Refs are mostly to a PR / SEO firm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Confirmed that this is undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article's content may be a promotional mess, but the subject may scrape by WP:BAND with non-trivial coverage from Jamaica Observer and Clash magazine. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Still comes up short of WP:GNG, promotional or not, if you look at true WP:RS sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete does not meet GNG. sourcing in article insufficient in depth. Clash is not sufficient in depth. Just saw reviews that are WP:MILL.Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waging War (album)[edit]

Waging War (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not notable, no sources, just a tracklist Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A search for the album confers blogs and Discogs, none of which contribute to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eian Beron[edit]

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

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

Completely non-notable individual with no actual coverage in RS. Google news gives exactly 3 hits and the sources included in the article aren't exactly coverage. In fact, the supposed coverage are links to his copyright infringing video on YouTube with a measly 90k hits. Most of the sources fail to even mention him and if they do it's in passing. And according to his iMDB page, I'd hardly say any of that work would qualify under WP:NACTOR. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 10:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Bennett[edit]

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

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

Non notable actress, Planned to source it however.... there isn't any sources! - Can't find any evidence of notability on Google, Fails NACTOR as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:TOOSOON, if at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Agree this is WP:TOOSOON. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find sources either. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CoSpaces[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I haved made some changes to the article, hoping it will match the guidelines. Please update me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas-pluralvonglas (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not seeing enough substantive coverage here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  09:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean chamber[edit]

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

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

Non-notable newspaper with zero references. I did a quick Google search to see what coverage, if any, the subject had, and wasn't able to find any to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only Ukrainian-language newspaper of Crimea. Its archive placed on Wikimedia Commons. On Google search result gives a transliteration Krymska svitlytsia --Jbuket (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Searching the proper terms makes a great deal of difference. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for better results that demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]