< 25 June	27 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watan TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This television station appears to fail WP:GNG. Coverage in sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not overtly spammy, but certainly a 'Business listing' and not supported by any claims of notability or importance. Fails WP:ORG.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and written in mostly promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any references show up. May be worth salting given the recent re-creation. A Train^talk 16:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un notable. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 06:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ying compestine[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the refs are self spawned despite their grand titles. Promotional advertorial content. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above the sources are suspect at best. I could not locate additional references to verify the subjects notability. Comatmebro (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage can be found - http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Ying-Chang-Compestine-revisits-the-Cultural-2499273.php and http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/31/268926416/for-a-twist-on-the-lunar-new-year-dumpling-add-green-tea - and reviews of her books; an article about her novel Revolution is Not a Dinner Party has existed since 2011. Peter James (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the two very reliable sources given by Peter James. Regardless of anything else, those two clearly show general notability. The article may need to be reworked to remove the spamminess, but that's another discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, I have added the two references. She also has a ridiculous long list of book awards. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- the author of the page made a request at the help desk, about this article, which may be important/relevant to this deletion discussion. Quote from request: I'm creating a Wikipedia page for myself and I would like to use the bio from my website. How can I do that without it being identified as "plagiarism"? Seagull123 Φ 16:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep I think the number of ratings she has received on Goodreads.com is large (and positive) enough to justify an article. However, WP:COI shouldn't be overlooked, and the article currently reads like a WP:RESUME, both serious concerns. WP:TNT may be in order. Timmyshin (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I would never object to deleting advertising of course, but in this case, the WorldCat shows thousands of library collections therefore enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Since sources have been offered, this would satisfy WP:V. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 30 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. With all respect to Andy Dingley, the deletes have it. As for merging, without any sourcing at all it's difficult to ponder merging content, but that's my opinion. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPC character set[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable character set. It was prodded for this reason but it was restored and that still applies. This is because there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article, failing WP:GNG -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is trivial. A merge to Amstrad CPC is problematic because adding this table would make that article worse; no objection to a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may exist/have existed, but for all the encyclopedic value it has in its current context it could just as easily have been made up by the author. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references or any accompanying information to establish authority. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard to do anything without sources; would reconsider if reliable sources were found. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically the above reasonings. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not just parroting the comments by other editors? Something you've just been at ANI and various admin talk pages at, accusing other editors of doing it? Why is it OK for you to literally say "Basically the above reasonings" and that's alright, but if anyone else disagrees with you and agrees with another editor, then it's "parroting" and should be discarded (with an itemised point-by-point list of reasons). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amstrad CPC, as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEC APC character set (and the same nominator). These were both machines that might represent dead-ends, with hindsight, but they had a significant multi-million unit slice of the market in their heyday. Notability is not transient. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andy Dingley: The one thing is that these character set articles have quite a few useless links (links such as ⊕) which would decrease the quality of Amstrad CPC, if merged. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it would not add much to the merged article (it is just a table of characters). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Would decrease the quality of [the target article]" is no reason for deletion. A link ⊕ is firstly correct, secondly a far broader WP problem – some disambig pages overlap into short definitions. It is not the task of AfD to address those. Thirdly, if the article needs work, then work on it to fix it – deletion is not a substitute.

What these articles do have in common though is rather more concerning: they're the creation of one editor, Rowan03 (talk · contribs) and their nomiinations for deletion are the strenuous efforts of another editor - yourself. Is there some reason for this? I'd ask those interested to check the user talk page to see just how many of these these are, but I note that you haven't even bothered to notify the editor for some of them (or even troubled with AfD, when you've preferred to simply blank them). This is much too close to HOUNDING for comfort. Is there any particular reason for this thorough campaign against one editor's efforts here? I note that your own talk page already contains warnings to not edit others comments on talk pages, and to avoid New Page Patrol. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Edge[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The NYT only has peripheral mentions and references a product and not the company (although in this article the two are hard to separate). Recent edits by what appears to be a publicity department haven't helped and have been reverted. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. There is no substantial coverage of the company in independent/reliable sources that meets the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flunks lé GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence(

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

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

The result was merge to Outer Plane. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bytopia[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Outer Plane. BOZ (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merging would likely give this topic its own section since there are no other places to put it. - TheMagnificentist 17:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plane of Shadow[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Plane (Dungeons & Dragons).Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merging wouldn't be appropriate since verifiability is not established due to lack of sources, meaning the merged content can be a hoax. - TheMagnificentist 17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by Ponyo, whose rationale was "CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by Starduststopova" (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 17:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaf (Model)[edit]

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

While WP:GNG is perhaps met through some press coverage but WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR do not seem to be demonstrated. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neck (New York Band)[edit]

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

Since the speedy was declined on a failed premise, I nominate this article as it clearly falls short of NMUSIC and GNG. The album's never charted nor were they covered extensively in reliable sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't be made notable for what its members went on to do. Notability is not inherited and backwards inherited notability certainly not. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence whatsoever for notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:BAND as I cannot find evidence of extensive mention in reliable sources, and the albums did not chart. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dismukes[edit]

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

Fails GNG. There are scores of architects who fit a similar profile. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not list every architect who designed a building, and even then, notability is not inherited from what they built unless the architect was awarded a major prize or has multiple, serious articles about their work in mainstream publications for his or her work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. Creation of an SPA. Most Ghits on Mr. Dismukes I see are from 2017, which gives me the idea that someone is trying to raise the price of a house somewhere in Pasadena. --Lockley (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faux[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this page, being about a fairly commonplace word, has little room for expansion into a proper encyclopedia article. (Elevated from contested PROD) Ibadibam (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's content has more to say about things with the word in it, and not about the actual word. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep this page should be merged with Faux (disambiguation), and the merged page should be at Faux. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Faux (disambiguation) here. The only appropriate info in the article is the definition, and that is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - belongs in Wiktionary. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above, belongs in Wiktionary. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictdef. --Lockley (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Columbus, Nebraska. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 17:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnee Plunge[edit]

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

Merge with Columbus, Nebraska article. This article fails WP:NGEO by itself. Rogermx (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - agree with Rogermx. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Newcastle incident[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. reddogsix (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike the 2017 Finsbury Park attack this incident has not yet been linked to terrorism or violence so I would err on deletion until more coverage or the motive could be proven otherwise. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable incident, Wikipedia is not news Seasider91 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem much else to speak about this incident. Banish thy article! ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not being treated as terrorism by the authorities, therefore not notable per WP:NOTNEWS.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and WP:NOTNEWS O Lunala!^{Imperatrix noctem.} 20:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not relevant as it was not motivated by terrorism Sunomi64 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do these type of events have to be terror attacks to qualify as notable? Jim Michael (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but a non-fatal traffic accident is even less likely to be notable than a minor terrorist attack (see WP:EVENT). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not a newspaper. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Greenbörg (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary, non-fatal accident. Jim Michael (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LA Voice[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Winged Blades^Godric 15:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no EV, fails WP:CORPDEPTH ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blossöm Records[edit]

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

Typical promotional article.Non-independent and non-reliable sources. Winged Blades^Godric 15:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - exactly how *not* to source a Record Label article. I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources. Does not have a length of history or roster of notable artists, nor is there anything to indicate the label has had any discernible impact on musical or general culture. Therefore fails NMUSIC#5 and GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a personal emotional attack on the article, everything listed in the record labels article us current, accurate and professional. All current rostered artists are active, touring, syncing and publishing music content. The labels latest releases and collaborations included Chad Hugo, Ne-Yo, BJ The Chicago Kid, and Billie Eilish.

Am deeply concerned by the impact of this deletion prompt, and how to stop it. - Please advise, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaltrose (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not the Time's top ten songs, or Billboard's Top 100 or a social media for fan clubs or a place for record labels and artists to launch/promote their respective careers or new albums. I see no EV or innovation that has revolutionized an industry. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references do not meet WP:RS and I think fails GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bacha Shah Jame Mosque[edit]

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

Has never cited a reliable source (the most recent one was the author's Google+ page, removed by another editor in March 2015). Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, ProQuest, and eight national newspapers in Bangladesh have found no mentions in reliable sources. Run-of-the-mill mosque like the other 358 in the sub-district. Does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. All I could find were two blog posts and a Facebook page. South Asian religious figures and institutions have been plagued, for years, by exploitation of Wikipedia to create buzz for non-notable subjects. All signs indicate that this is one of those many cases. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another neighbourhood mosque. The coordinates lead to a hamlet in the jungle by a river, with one narrow road some distance away. Neither the mosque's claimed founding date of 1833 nor rebuilding date of 1983 are supported by the year mentioned above the entrance: 2012. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Norman (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The RM at Talk:Archie Norman#Requested move 16 June 2017 leads to this disambiguation page being unnecessary per WP:TWODABS. However, the user who moved the page to then make a disambiguation page declined the prod thinking that disambiguation is necessary contrary to what the RM says. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and move Archie Norman back to Archie Norman (businessman); I didn't "think that disambiguation is necessary contrary to what the RM says", I think - as I made clear in my edit summary - that the RM (which had a total of just two participants) is wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TWODABS applies. An MP and chairman of two major British businesses is the clear primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Archie Norman is clear primary topic, no dab page needed. PamD 08:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TWODABS applies. Andy, if you think the move was mistaken, present your case at WP: Move review or open a new move discussion. older ≠ wiser 10:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lockley (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Ogando[edit]

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

No evidence for notability, Fails WP:CREATIVE ,WP:GNG. Probably a Self-promotion exercise. Razer^Talk 13:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No comments on the self-promotion bit. Whatever I've read of the subject points to his being quite talented and one who has performed internationally. He's also the editor-in-chief of the Ground magazine.[1][2]. So am unsure. Lourdes 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article about GROUND magazine is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GROUND. (No opinion on either myself.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have just removed two "references", neither of which (links to Kulturstiftung des Bundes, the German Federal Cultural Foundation and to Wikileaks) make any reference whatsoever to the biographee. I have just added a Notability tag on the corresponding article at es:wp and am checking other, related articles created in Spanish. --Technopat (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, they created both pages. then tagged the first one GROUND Magazine for speedy deletion, immediately they created the right one, this was a faster way to change article's name following Wikipedia's suggestion. The tag on the current page GROUND seem a bit fishy since one minute after also the author Ismael Ogando who is tagged in GROUND is also marked for deletion very recently, almost a minute after they tagged GROUND, it seems an action with bad intentions, likely happened with the wikicommon images which are placed with consent of the author and were deliberately deleted! also an article from 5 years ago was tagged as irrelevant for the encyclopedia. This is clearly an act of vandals, since the author tagged target is currently alive and at risk of political persecution. Lets not get dramatic and paranoid. But clearly there was a serious intent to damage and erase this author's work, therefore this is an action of #Vandalism.2A06:8781:0:305:254B:4F73:48DA:16C4 (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with articles about notable subjects, not free web space for creating notability. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per Thomas.W's --Discasto (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothings shows he passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion, as the article was an only very slightly modified copy of the web page https://research.vmware.com/researchers/sujata-banerjee, most of the text being word for word identical. There is, of course, no prejudice against creation of a new article on the same subject without copyright infringement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sujata Banerjee[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Deletion per WP:NOTLINKEDIN / WP:NOTCV. A WP:BEFORE indicates a dearth of reliable sources ([3]). Chairing programs etc =/= notability. No depth or persistence of coverage to pass WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails PROF and does not meet GNG/BIO. Lourdes 17:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF, though the present article provides no evidence. According to google scholar, her most cited paper "DevoFlow: Scaling flow management for high-performance networks"

…, P Yalagandula, P Sharma, S Banerjee - ACM SIGCOMM …, 2011 has been cited 805 times. The second, 742 times. Then 227, 173, 137, 121, 116, 115, 114. 107, 106 We measure influence in science by citations. Usually, even in heavily cited fields, one or two papers with over 100 citations each is enough for notability . She has 7. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG makes sense. I had missed the fact that the Sujata Banerjee erstwhile of HP is the same Sujata Banerjee of Dell. I am striking my vote. Thanks. Lourdes 15:45, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sanderson[edit]

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

Nothing here seems to be sufficiently notable for WP. Lives No Longer Ours does not appear to be a notable film. His book does not appear to have any coverage except for articles he wrote himself. Says his dramatic works have been produced in Sydney, but he is not listed in AusStage (which isn't always comprehensive but is pretty good) and I can't find references elsewhere. His IMDB acting credits include the characters 'Complaining Man' and 'FBI Agent', nothing significant. Boneymau (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches found nothing beyond what is established by sources already on mage. Nothing to establish, ore even suggest, notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CoinTelegraph[edit]

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

This online magazine doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG/Wikipedia:Notability (media)/Wikipedia:Notability (websites). My prod was removed by User:Kvng who noted that this publication is used as sources on Wikipedia quite often, and deserves a discussion here. He does raise a good point, partially: years ago I noted that the bitcoin area seems to be heavily referenced from several walled garden publication like this one: they, and generally only they, report about even the tinyiest developments in the field, and their 'coverage', IMHO no different from press-release quality, has been used to justify keeping stubs on numerous startups in the field. We need to dismantle this spam garden, and this is not a bad place to start. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's enough, but it gets cited quite a lot in other more mainstream publications. Whilst I agree the article right now fails to establish notability, it is in fact notable Deku-shrub (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly WP:TOOSOON per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Bezuglov[edit]

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

I am not sure if he passes WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see any in-depth coverage, or awards. The reference to his albums published as part of the Class&Jazz Duo ensemble seems self-published. Comments appreciated. PS. It is possible the ensemble may be notable, but it is very dubious he is - perhaps this could be rewritten and renamed Class&Jazz Duo (but again, I don't see refs for the ensemble's notability, either). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a possible copyvio. - TheMagnificentist 12:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg Bezuglov had the Wikipedia page in Russian since 2008. Check it out here. This article is an attempt to establish this artists' presence in the English segment of WP, especially since he resides in US. He has been a winner of several notable chamber music competition as it is stated in the article (First prize at the Shostakovich Competition, Third prize at the Maria Yudina Competition in St. Petersburg and Third prize at ICMEC competition in Boston). He is also the Honored Worker of All-Russian Musical Society. This organization has a rather strict regulations for its nominees (e.g. substantial national presence, competition prizes, and limit for 20 nominations per year). Bezuglov has newspaper coverage in Russian national newspapers, including Muzikalnoe Obozrenie, Vecherni Rostov, and Nashe Vremya, and Ukranian press in Vechernya Odessa. He has records available on almost any media-source, including Apple iTunes, Rhapsody, MediaNet, Amazon MP3, Spotify, Google Music Store, Slacker Radio, YouTube Music, Pandora, and others. Also he is a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles: besides Class&Jazz, he is associate concertmaster, assistant principal second and first violin member member in six professional symphony orchestras in US, members of American Federation of Musicians. This is also listed in the article. I am still working on the article, and will keep adding new information. I hope that other contributors will help as well. However, even with the points I listed, Oleg Bezuglov is meeting several WP notability criteria and he does have in-depth coverage though mostly in Russian sources. I would appreciate you withdrawing your nomination for deletion. Thanks! Fiddler11 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the copyvio was already addressed and discussed. The page in question is the ensemble Class&Jazz's bio, and it has the copyright release note. Fiddler11 (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was the copyvio issue discussed? Where is the release note? I don't see any Wikipedia:OTRS ticket note on article's talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The release note "The text of this webpage is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0(CC0)" is on the http://class-jazz.com/about-us webpage, which was the point of copyvio concern. It was discussed on the Talk page, and I might have accidentally deleted it. I am new to WP and still adapting to use its tools Fiddler11 (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really well-known Russian musician. The article passes WP:MUSICBIO, as the musician participated in several competitions and has got grants from several foundations. 12:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Keep - Notable artist in a good number of projects. Active for an impressive period until very recently. Well referenced article. werldwayd (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More biographical data and 17 new sources were added since the nomination Fiddler11 15:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are quire enough references, especially Russian ones, that make it passing WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wine and Restaurants magazine[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale, and without addressing the issue for the prod, which is sourcing and notability. An earlier edit did list a rationale for notability, and while the award is hardly notable (the publisher which posts the award has questionable notability, let alone the award), it doesn't meet the standards of notability. A claim was made it was the first and only wine magazine in Vietnam, but I can find no sourcing to back that up, and currently the article is entirely unsourced. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (media). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Leaney[edit]

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

Subject had a supporting role in Stupid, Stupid Man but does not seem to have any other notable credits, so does not pass WP:NACTOR Boneymau (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON, not all actors are notable. Needs more than one minor role to be in an encyclopedia. Mention of his name in the movie credits section is enough. We don't need an article that can say nothing but 'he had one minor role'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 26 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 ~~New Cross Gate railway station~~. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I queried this close with MBisanz on their talk page, and they have asked that their close be amended to merge to New Cross Gate TMD as they are unable to do so themselves.[4] Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Cross Gate Carriage Servicing Depot[edit]

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

There is no indication that this railway depot is notable, other than its inclusion in two books and a website which catalogue railway depots. OpenStreetMap says it has 16 tracks, so it's not particularly large by UK standards, and it's not a listed building. I would redirect it to East London Line. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 11:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So we delete it because it's mentioned in two books that specialise in covering this topic? Where were you looking for coverage? Health and Efficiency? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andy Dingley: I'm not sure myself of how important it is, but just because it's mentioned in a specialist book or three doesn't automatically mean it's notable. It doesn't seem to pass WP:NGEO (the policy seems deliberately vague on infrastructure-related articles), and the entire article would fit into a subsection of East London Line. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 09:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks adequate to me. There are (stub) station articles with less information than this that nobody contests. Useddenim (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

& Merge per Thryduulf. Useddenim (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New Cross Gate railway station. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and Merge with the duplicate article New Cross Gate TMD. I don't have an opinion about which title is better. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MRDD[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to merit an article of its own. References don't work. Needs more context. Not clear whether MRDD is only in Ohio. Should merge with some bigger topic or be developed by someone who understands context. Rathfelder (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links at the bottom are just spam. No indication of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GROUND[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA Razer^Talk 10:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted the duplicate at GROUND Magazine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, GROUND Magazine is the slightly older of the two and is the original, but the two are essentially identical, so if the result is Keep then it's probably better to undelete GROUND Magazine and delete GROUND. But I don't see any point in swapping them around at this stage and retargeting the AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, they created both pages. then tagged the first one GROUND Magazine for speedy deletion, immediately they created the right one, this was a faster way to change article's name following Wikipedia's suggestion. The tag on the current page GROUND seem a bit fishy since one minute after also the author Ismael Ogando who is tagged in GROUND is also marked for deletion very recently, almost a minute after they tagged GROUND, it seems an action with bad intentions, likely happened with the wikicommon images which are placed with consent of the author and were deliberately deleted! also an article from 5 years ago was tagged as irrelevant for the encyclopedia. This is clearly an act of vandals, since the author tagged target is currently alive and at risk of political persecution. Lets not get dramatic and paranoid. But clearly there was a serious intent to damage and erase this author's work, therefore this is an action of #Vandalism.2A06:8781:0:305:254B:4F73:48DA:16C4 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETION as G11, pure promotion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per Thomas.W's --Discasto (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Sharon[edit]

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

dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Fails to meet notability criteria at WP:BAND.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was unable to find much in terms of sourcing. Did find this - [5] in Hebrew on his old name - Not enough.Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant Budi Yogi[edit]

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

Non-notable author and songwriter. Can find no coverage (online at least) to verify claims in this article and most hits are to social media or non-coverage. Awards won are not notable themselves. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my reluctance to delete is in part because of Wikipedia#Systemic bias, in part because while the SCTV Music Award is not in the same class as Anugerah Musik Indonesia, it is not an insignificant award, and in part because I may be hindered in finding reliable sources by my lack of Malay or Indonesian. My delete !vote is based upon my inability to verify the 2012 SCTV award for Best Song of The Year (again hindered by the lack of the song title), by the fact that the award seems to be a performance award and not one for the songwriter, as well as a general lack of coverage of Valiant Budi Yogi in reliable sources. I note that the Indonesian article on SCTV Music Awards 2012 only lists "most popular song" and not "best song". The winning song Senyum Semangat does not match any that he is listed as writing. I suspect that the article's author is unfamiliar with the need for reliable sources as well as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Article development#Research. --Bejnar (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. O Lunala!^{Imperatrix noctem.} 20:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:RS + WP:Notability (people) ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly, I couldn't find enough significant coverage for this songwriter. Though he won an award, there doesn't seem to be much coverage about him winning it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MDSupplies[edit]

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

Two of the references are to the company's own press release. I found very little to no coverage in independent RSs. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Rentier (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - TheMagnificentist 17:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolok[edit]

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

No real indication of notability; the cites are not about the company, apart from one blog post about an award from one of its organisers (and of course "we award you this award" is no good for notability).

Additionally, "can't get there from here" - the article is a mass of obvious PR junk and if the company was notable this text would be of little use. (ETA: I was going to say, a pity this didn't go via AFC, but it did! It's a mystery to me how some of this stuff gets accepted.) Pinkbeast (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR, promotions, corporate spam !Light2021 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did Light2021 !vote twice on this? I can see why they might want to (the refs are not really about the company itself). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was my edit error. Light2021 (talk) 20:01, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterless Bathing Technology[edit]

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

Promotion for the named company with no useful explanation of how this technology even works Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious. Should be deleted until it is written properly, if some technology of note can be substantiated. Fails GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive press coverage/fails WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, they don't have a novel invention, but are merely planning to take existing water-free washing/sanitising technology, manufacture it in India, and sell it to the army. (semi-comprehensible press release). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 27 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Chirici[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - Mr X 22:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing significant as far as Tennis Project requirements. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. O Lunala!^{Imperatrix noctem.} 20:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:30, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anarkismo.net[edit]

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

The topic—a website—lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) There do not appear to be any sources that discuss the site itself ([6] is the closest) and most mentions are in passing from author bios. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. czar 04:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 04:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 04:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - TheMagnificentist 17:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable web site. Note the ext links in body -- the hallmark of such promotional articles. This content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Anna Dean. As long as the article Anna Dean for this author's other pseudonym exists, I guess we have to redirect. That article can be nominated for deletion separately. Sandstein 09:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Veevers[edit]

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

Promotional article for new book, by borderline notable author ."Jane and Dorothy" has just been published or is about to be published; worldcat show it is in no libraries; Amazon lists in as "currently unavailable". Of her fiction, Worldcat shows Bloodlines in only 34 libraries, Fallen Women in only 4. Her regency romances are in a few hundred libraries each, as is everything in that genre. The timing of this article proves the promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not intended to be promotional. The article Anna Dean has been on Wikipedia since 2011. The original intention was to update that article to include the new publication in the list of books. However, because the new book is published under the author's real name rather than her pen-name, it seemed better to create a new page. User:Peterc1421 ( talk ) 23:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article for A10 speedy deletion, as we already have an article on this topic, Anna Dean. Most of the content was copied from there. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

better to have Marian Veevers redirect to Anna Dean. Roseohioresident (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the new page suggests the opposite at Talk:Marian Veevers: that the content should reside at Marian Veevers as that is the author's real name. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly does not qualify for WP:CSD#A10, as the title is a plausible redirect, so I have removed the tag. My suggestion is to merge and redirect to the existing article. (This can be reversed using a move request later). —Kusma (t·c) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anna Dean, or vice versa as per Kusma's course of action. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: redirect which one where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a redirect. The two articles have the same content. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't consider he notable under either name DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think she passes WP:AUTHOR as noted here, here and here but certainly not worthy of two articles. Can't an admin simply delete & redirect, or must we languish at AfD? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles without creating a redirect, per the arguments of User:DGG, which suggest to me a lack of sufficient notability. I didn't notice any published reviews of her books or any press coverage. This page on Marian Veevers' web site quotes from Kirkus Reviews, but no date or link is provided and I couldn't find the name Veevers in the website search at kirkusreviews.com. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Here is a review of one of the Anna Dean books at the Kirkus site. So, the Kirkus people do like the book, though per kirkusreviews.com they now offer book marketing as a service. I don't know what weight to assign to the 'Exceptional merit' that they find. I am uncertain whether Kirkus Reviews ever publishes any negative reviews, under their new business model. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of their willingness to review if the author pays them, I consider them unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, what about the articles and book lists/reviews in the Historical Novel Society and the the Jane Austen News Issue? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{Adding that an A-10 speedy by one admin was declined by another admin as (not an a10, clearly a plausible redirect).^{Atsme📞📧} 22:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

User:Atsme: We do not have any Wikipedia article on the Historical Novel Society. These appear to be unsigned reviews by individual readers (probably as requested by the Society office) and the reviews carry no date. I don't notice any criticism in any of the reviews I looked at. So a favorable comment in one of those reviews may not carry much weight. The article in the Jane Austin News looks like an announcement of the forthcoming publication of Jane and Dorothy and not an actual review. It was presumably based on a press release sent to them by the publisher. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BradTheLadLong[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards / article used for advertising & promotion of subject / uses subject as self-publishing source where sources are unduly self-serving / involves unverifiable claims about third parties / article mainly based on gossip & feedback looping Tpowell91 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this gentleman is being noticed and discussed by mainstream media. If what he does is dislikable, it's not for us to penalize him for that. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they were in the mainstream media, it wasn't because of their fame and it seems like they're only famous for acting like an idiot and getting 'in other news' attention; and I've removed a clear ADVERT designed to troll an awards event into giving the subject an undeserved award. Nothing notable here I see outside of stuff found in gossip sections. Finally, article creator has only edited this article outside an immediately-reverted edit to another YouTube celebrity, so that needs to also be taken into account. Nate • (chatter) 02:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. No assertion of notability. Few reliable sources; no significant coverage anywhere. Creation of an SPA, likely promotion or self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a gossip section or a tabloid. That is all the coverage here is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jinto Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER Marvellous Spider-Man 15:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could barely find any coverage, let alone in-depth coverage of this person, clearly fails WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to passing WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:18, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megia[edit]

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

Unneccessary disambiguation page with a list of two unrelated people. Anyone looking for a specific person would use their full name rather than just a surname. Nördic Nightfury 09:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not useful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:14, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dopeadelicz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, sources are trivial Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; there's no claim any of their songs or albums are popular, and the coverage is mostly trivial coverage of the band in discussion of their political views. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, I can find anything beyond trivial coverage about these guys Rrachet (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shot Tower Capital[edit]

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

Rejected at AfC as WP:ARTSPAM,moved into mainspace by main contributor. Reads like an advertisement, and does not establish corporate notability Mduvekot (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's marginal: there are articles in Billboard and Variety about the formation of the company (although they focus as much on the people involved as the company, and a tenuous link with Michael Jackson is also mentioned prominently), but after that it's all passing mentions or press releases. A little bit more press coverage focused on the company would establish notability, but you could argue that existing coverage is focused on a single event (the founding by individuals of minor newsworthiness) and is less of the firm than of the actions of its founders. For a firm to be notable, I'd expect at least continuing press coverage of its actions over time. I don't know if David Dunn might be a notable individual. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I obviously believe is notable enough or would not have moved to mainspace after researching and editing. There appears to be continuing coverage of this company as well, will continue to add those citations. Thanks. EricPfromTustin (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active company and simple Google search yields plenty of coverage and sourcing. Also does not read like advertisement in my opinion. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they are either routine annoucements of company activity or they are straight-up company announcements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note added one more citation that adds just a tiny bit more third party independent sourcing about this company itself.EricPfromTustin (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability is not inherited from notable clients, and there's nothing else there. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provide detailed coverage about Shot Tower Capital's founding and its work providing merger and acquisition advice. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything here is an announcement. The Variety one, emphasised above, even says its "based on their press release". The others are even more minor. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with HighKing and DGG. The sources are what we usually call "routine business transactions" when discussing corp articles that end up getting deleted. The text of the article confirms: company "worked with XXX", exec "testified to ZZZ", but very little about what makes this company notable. - Bri (talk) 20:02, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FirstImpression.io[edit]

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

Despite the increasing number of refs, none of them get close to establishing notability. Plenty of blogs and interviews on YouTube and even a Linkedin ref but nothing substantial or independednt. The Huffington Post looked possible, but nothing of any merit there either. Reads like and advertisement and probably is just that. Significant content all provided by one SPA. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO on an unremarkable private business. Copy includes typical "corporate spam" as in:

FirstImpression.io’s technology is used to complement a publisher’s existing advertising setup.[12] It creates tailored ad placements for specific page layouts, users, and editorial requirements.[13][14] Etc.

Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UCD Dramsoc[edit]

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

The article has a claim to significance, was established in 1927. I can not find any sources that discuss the society. There are plenty of sources that mention the society but they are in the context of person X was a member of the society. The three sources currently in the article are no help. Two are the same person X was a member. The other is a 404 link that was to a society page on the UCD website. ~ GB fan 10:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources show that it meets the WP:GNG requirement Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Throne of Glass. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Throne of Glass (novel)[edit]

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

This article is largely a fork of Throne of Glass. The only new content is largely in-universe. I'd redirect it, but the titles are so similar that anyone attempting to find the redirect would find the actual article first. It's better off deleted. v/r - T P 16:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge it with Throne of Glass article...Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite two relists, no real further discussion happened, with no !voters addressing the edits the article went through after the last delete !vote, which is also why I decided against relisting again. As such, it's unclear whether the previous deletion !voters would still have argued for deletion based on the current shape of the article. So Why 12:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nerren[edit]

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

Not notable trial court judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and the coverage of cases he has judged appears to all be WP:MILL. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Squeaks by as a local politician with sufficient references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's one source given which is unambiguously about Nerren, though it's very short and only partly about Nerren. The remaining sources merely mention or list him. This isn't quite enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether the changes made after the last !vote might change the notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies under "local politician" with adequate sources. See: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.173.217.102.124 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above IP has no other edits other than to this AFD and is more than likely a sockpuppet of banned editor Billy Hathorn who also created this article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flanaess. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunndi[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; this is a fictional polity with no out-of-universe notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flanaess. Guinness323 (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flanaess. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Cairns[edit]

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

This article doesn't establish notability. It also appears to be a separate module, but nothing about it seems to be mentioned here. I think the modules are usually notable, so if someone wants to fully convert it, I don't mind withdrawing this. Otherwise, deleting it and making a new article about the module would have the same result. TTN (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in a reduced form to The Star Cairns. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ... wait, we've had two articles on this same module, differing in a 'The', since 2007? That's just nuts. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject article of the AFD is the fictional geographical location, while the "The" article is about a real-world publication, Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe merge something somewhere, but the proposed targets have their own GNG problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Piotrus errs in that the notability of anything other than this fictional element is outside the scope of this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Probably a "keep" after the rewrite, but certainly no consensus to delete. Sandstein 09:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Loomer[edit]

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

Self-publicising article for a person who fails WP:BLP1E. Only has news coverage for a stunt - which in itself was distinctly unnotable. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator, will not cast a vote in the AfD process and gladly welcome the WP populous to decide if the national/international media coverage of the subject, from multiple independent reliable sources, meets the standards to establish subject's notability, under WP guidelines. All the best and happy voting! Cllgbksr (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very clear WP:BLP1E case with no other claims to notability. The event itself seems to be WP:NOTNEWS as it's hard to see how that's a "significant current event" or a "topic of historical significance", on the contrary it will be long forgotten. Valenciano (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been expanded since being nominated and no longer quite fits WP:BLP1E. This is a Medea Benjamin-type political activist who likes to stage stunts that get some news coverage. she's new at it , so maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON and she'll become the Medea Benjamin of the anti-Islam right. At present, however, there is nothing like WP:SIGCOV of her. Delete for lack of sources adequate to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person seemingly known solely for rather and unfunny attention-seeking stunts. No in-depth coverage such as profile pieces to demonstrate long-term significance. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stills seems to be me to be WP:BLP1E as only the most recent is that noteworthy. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added another reference, independent RS that goes into some depth on her. May meet WP:SIGCOV [7]. Cllgbksr (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My sense is this might just be a little WP:TOOSOON for an article. She already has an in-depth profile in the New Yorker, per the above comment. I think she'd meet the notability requirements if she gets coverage outside of June 2017. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loomer has received significant coverage for more than just the most recent Shakespeare in the Park event. For instance, TIME Magazine covered her infiltration into the Clinton campaign (here, here). NBC covered her trying to convince her university to start a pro-ISIS club so it could be caught on camera by James O'Keefe (here). Then there are the other stunts currently listed in the article. Yeah, she's a real class act. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will add those to the article. Thanks Dr. Fleischman for the info. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The in-depth profile in the New Yorker magazine this month, plus the non-trivial coverage in Time magazine and NBC Miami (March & August 2015) mean's she has enough WP:RS coverage to meet the WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the New Yorker piece was NOT a profile, it did not discuss her background or draw on sources as profiles do, it was a simple morning-after interview about the Julius Caesar staged protest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification please... WRT discussion of "her background", do you mean her place of birth, academic career, marraige, children? I agree with those who regard the mundane biographical milestones of a life as desirable, but unnecessary for a BLP. It is what individuals do, not where they are born, that makes them notable. Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is essentially a professional troll/griefer, getting some press coverage in far-right media for said antics, but the reliable sources mention the subject's name in passing in part of the coverage of the troll/grief events themselves. ValarianB (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closer, this is verifiably false and should carry little weight. TIME Magazine, NBC Miami, The New Yorker (which did an in-depth profile), The Guardian, etc. etc. are hardly "far-right media." It is one thing to hold the position that a "troller/griefer" should not get an article, it's quite another to grossly misrepresent facts during an AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, Mr. Fleischman, why you chose to lie, but I'm sure the closer will be able discount your views accordingly. The Time and NBC sources mention the subject in passing only, neither are sufficient. The New Yorker is decent, but there we run afoul of WP:BLP1E, as others have noted. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, I wasn't lying but I apparently misinterpreted your comment as saying that all press coverage was from far-right media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject was in the News before June 2017. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refuted by WP:GOOGLEHITS. You can't point to a list and say "that shows notability" without evaluating the hits. In this case, several of the sources are the in-passing ones discounted above. The rest are hits to unreliable sources like Breitbart, to more in-passing mentions, and to "Project Veritas" itself. ValarianB (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except that if you actually do evaluate the hits you'll see that a number of them are from reliable sources and satisfy BLP1E. Namely, there is no requirement for significant coverage concerning the other events (see first prong of BLP1E), and Loomer is very clearly not a low-profile individual (second prong of BLP1E). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two more sources, from ABC Miami, with significant coverage about how Loomer secretly videotaped her professors in 2015 and faced criminal charges:

Milberg, Glenna (April 9, 2015). "Barry University professor files criminal complaint against student". WPLG.
Milberg, Glenna (March 30, 2015). "Barry University faculty accused of supporting Islamic State terrorists". WPLG.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will update article. Thanks for the info. Dr. Fleischman Cllgbksr (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The video sources go beyond the written ones. They say Loomer took the professors' words out of context and "twisted" their advice to sound like support for ISIS, and they say Loomer was suspended just a few weeks before her graduation and was prevented from completing her degree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to watch the videos but my internet is 'slow slow slow' and it kept pausing and buffering. Thanks for the heads up. (Can't believe she threw away a four year degree over that stunt.)Cllgbksr (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find out whether she ever completed her degree, after her suspension ended or at another college, but no luck. I also couldn't find anything about how far the criminal charges were pursued. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A collection of news events on the same person does not seem appropriate as an article. Mrwrte 23:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwrite (talk • contribs) [reply]

Dunno what that means. By that logic we should delete most of our current events and sports BLPs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I also don't know what that means. Geo Swan (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closer, I got out in front of my skis thinking the Julius Caesar play disruption coverage was sufficient to establish subject's notability without thinking of WP:BLP1E. The non-trivial Barry University-Clinton infiltration coverage and the New Yorker profile of subject were necessary for article to pass muster, they were added after it was nominated for AfD and several delete votes. (I want to thank Dr. Fleischman for his research and his help with the article.) Not using good judgment is on me and I own it for making that mistake. Cllgbksr (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After the first couple of delete !votes, the article was expanded significantly, so further discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Dr Flieschman. Geo Swan (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Several contributors, including nominator, Black Kite, Valenciano, E.M.Gregory, Crash Underride, ValarianB assert Loomer is an example of a BLP1E. Hmmm. If Loomer had tried to execute a single hoax, wouldn't that be an instance of BLP1E. Even if she tried to execute the same hoax, multiple times, she might be considered an instance of a BLP1E. But, if she tried to execute a variety of different hoaxes, should we really consider her an instance of a BLP1E? Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am concerned that some of the delete opinions are associated with a sense of disapproval of Loomer's character. I think we have to be careful not to indulge in letting personal approval, or disapproval, of an individual's character, play a role in whether we think an article about them should be deleted or retained. --Aleccat 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article's sources are clearly reliable sources that cover the topic in-depth, albeit the article's poor writing. --Aleccat 02:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur my writing is poor. (Proper grammar, sentence structure, flow of article.) It's something I struggle with...Cllgbksr (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revisting, but given that there is no WP:SIGCOV, no profiles or analysis, no accomplishment on Loomis' part beyond a political stunt or two that got her into a short-lived news cycle, nor have her stunts produced any impact beyond getting into a news cycle, I continue to fail to see a basis for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just an observation, the Los Angeles Times wrote "Lastly, a profile of Laura Loomer, the woman who disrupted the Public’s production of “Julius Caesar.” (here) referring to The New Yorker article as a profile with a link for their readers. (here) Cllgbksr (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With reservations will reverse myself and vote on the article as it's creator. Believe article now passes muster based on the WP:SIGCOV subject received over the 2015 Barry University stunt (was covered multiple times as the story progressed, from coverage of release of video to the fallout coverage that followed), that went into depth on Loomer (her taping Barry U officials, covered her being a senior, honors student, communications major, president of Young Republicans, suspended from Barry U, criminal charges filed, i.e coverage was non-trivial) and the international WP:SIGCOV for the 2017 "Julius Caesar' disruption from very reliable sources (Guardian, WaPo, NY Times), the two events (Barry & Julius), both combined with Clinton campaign infiltration coverage by Time magazine in 2015, the WP:BLP1E reasoning for articles nomination for AfD now does not fit. Subject also received non-trivial profile coverage by The New Yorker that meets the minimum standards of WP:GNG. The article has been expanded since being nominated for AfD. Would like to thank first closer for the extended discussion, those who contributed to the article - especially since Loomer whose motivation to constantly "stir the pot" may be for her own personal gain and to generate attention (as The Washington Post mentioned on "Julius Caesar" disruption), and not for the reasons she cites. Cllgbksr (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 277[edit]

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

NN bus route, only claim to fame is an isolated incident where drivers left engines on at a terminus. No other notable dealings have happened. Run of the mill. Nördic Nightfury 14:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree this one is non-notable. Nothing remarkable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the route was started in 1959 and has been featured by the TimeOut magazine editors in 2009 as a particularly scenic route, covered in London Transport books as is shown by articles references. The route also received coverage by London media organisations after some outcry as part of a public consultation (again in references). Other editors with access to more London bus scene literature may be able to help out with identifying the notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in the slightest. Jeni ^(talk) 19:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although agreedly some routes are more notable than others, this is an encyclopædia, and when some entries in a group are left out for not meeting an arbitrary threshold it leaves unexplained holes. Useddenim (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Jcc. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 22:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable bus route, Most if not all sources are just one-bit trivial mentions, better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (seemingly the only relevant notability guideline here) - coverage in several reliable sources over a period of years, relating to three or four different facets of its nature and history. If this gets deleted then we have to seriously rethink how we define notability, because this comfortably meets the requirements as they're currently written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.245.192 (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 81.100.245.192. Despite how much some people seem to hate articles on bus routes, this one does meet the GNG as demonstrated above and in the references. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brent Allen[edit]

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

As written, does not state general notability or biographical notability.

Google search turns up other people with similar names, but no independent information about him. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC for lack of reliable sources about the subject.- Mr X 14:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaihang[edit]

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

There are no reputable sources about the company WP:CORPDEPTH Ain soph (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom has been indeffed for sockpuppetry

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as corporate spam with content such as: "a leading local company mainly focusing on commercial real estate consulting" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester Employer Coalition[edit]

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

Unreferenced. May no longer exist. No obvious sign of notability Rathfelder (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete A WP:BEFORE indicates insufficient references in reliable sources, with no depth or persistence of coverage in news or texts. The nom suggests it may no longer exists; whilst not in itself a reason to delete, it does impair the liklihood of further sources coming available. In any case, fails GNG as the only metions of this organisation are passing, usually in the context of them handing out an award to another party. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fortuna. - TheMagnificentist 15:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germany at major beauty pageants[edit]

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

I removed two broken links to non-RS and one piece of text that formatted like a source. With no sources, this is WP:OR. There is no evidence that RS discuss this actual topic either, making it a trival intersection of data between contests. Legacypac (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just note Category:Nations at beauty pageants, which is populated with such lists. This should be considered a test case for the entire grouping -- or better yet, they should all be bundled into a group nom, now, for the widest discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Canada page is copy past intro and the same two busted and one fake reference. Same for the next one I checked. I'm pretty rusty at bundling AfDs and it is tough on the phone - can you do it Shawn? Legacypac (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems relevant, as all of these pages seem to use this as inclusion criteria for what constitutes a "major" beauty pageant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four international beauty pageants. We've also had AFDs on comparable pages before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angola at major beauty pageants, closed as delete August 2015; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines at major beauty pageants (2nd nomination), closed as keep Feburary 2017. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & use as test case -- trivia and fancruft; no encyclopedic relevance. If this one ends deleted, then the rest in the cat can be uncontroversially PROD'ed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I believe it meets WP:LISTPURP. I concur with North America¹⁰⁰⁰ in his comment when the article Philippines at major beauty pageants was under AfD. He stated that it’s a “functional information source and navigational aid. Deletion would force readers to click through many various articles to find the information that is summarized in the article.”--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Synthesis. This article does not report from sources, it combines and represents data in a chart. Does anybody really find this useful? --Lockley (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meylişah Hatun[edit]

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

The article is probably fabricated. Back in May 2016, User:Nalanidil stated here that this person isn't a real historical figure, and now the creator of the article himself says on his talk page that he doesn't have any information about this person and isn't able to find any reliable source for the article. The main question now is that whether the current sources on this article (which by the way were added by its creator) support the material of it or not. If nothing can be found about this woman anywhere, then this article should be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 12:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Z.Y. Fu[edit]

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

Not enough press coverage Ain soph (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will have no problem with you deleting the page if you can find a better way to clarify this person's relationship with Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science. --Pulsarwind (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Significant sources in Chinese such as [8] and [9]. Not many entrepreneurs are able to donate $26 million to a school, and it's not like he inherited the money, he earned it himself from scratch. In addition to the donation to Columbia U. mentioned in the article, the first Chinese article says he donated ¥47.9 million to his hometown of Zhenhai District. The second article says he also set up scholarships in Zhejiang University, Peking University, Tsinghua University and Fudan University — these are arguably the 4 most prestigious schools in China. Timmyshin (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a major school at a prestigious Ivy League university is named after him - that alone is sufficient to establish his notability. Not to mention that he was a major entrepreneur in Japan and philanthropist in China. -Zanhe (talk) 15:51, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tañon Strait derby[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NRIVALRY. A simple google search shows only a single tweet about this. The term itself hasn't been established yet and could have been coined by fans (How come a match-up played for only 11 times count as a derby?). No single occurrence of a news article stating this "derby". Possible original research on creating the article. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no sources showing notability present. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the article talk page I found this new comment: This article should be named the Visayas Clasico. The Tañon Strait Derby tag has been an unofficial tag by the fans while the league and the mainstream have been tagging the matchup as the former. I have not examined this article and have I no opinion on a name change or AFD outcome. I just wanted to notify this discussion of the potential naming issue, and let the relatively new user know they can participate here.
Jpg0813: Wikipedia has many policies regarding articles, but the main thing to know here is that we are looking for evidence of WP:Notability. We need to see that independent WP:Reliable Sources already consider this topic notable enough to have published information about it. We have an unofficial but easy summary page at WP:42. If we don't find sufficiently good published sources about this topic, the article will likely be deleted. Alsee (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There is indeed some kind of historical rivalry in the Visayas but its more of between teams in Negros and Panay islands. Imho its original research, its questionable if this particular rivalry between Global and Ceres has established itself as the "Tanon Strait derby" if Global has yet to play a match at their new home ground in Cebu and the article covers the United Football League period where both teams were playing in Manila and Global was formally based further east from Cebu, in Tacloban. I guess there is indeed a rivalry between the two major clubs in the country but it would be premature to dubbed it as the Tanon Strait derby.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian King[edit]

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

The article provides no indication of the subject's notability. I didn't find any coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources.

Based on the citation counts of a sample of the published articles that I checked and the lack of independent coverage, she doesn't seem to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Rentier (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't been able to find any indication she meets WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. Also, none of the biographical information in the article is sourced, which is problematic for a BLP. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Totally lacks any WP:RS and I can't find any. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After finding an archived copy of the only source for the text of the article (a deadlink), I discovered that it's also a copyvio — "She spent 15 years at Oxford and five years at the South African Museum in Cape Town" is a direct quote from the source. In any case, although there are enough citations to her works to make a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1 (Google scholar shows three publications cited over 100 times and h-index = 17), there just isn't enough sourcing and content to make an adequate article about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Curiously, at least one of the references refers to Gary King, who I presume is a completely different person. Rentier (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, a mis-identification by the library with the microbiologist Gary M. King for one paper. However the first reference seems to be by a different Gillian King who was at Cambrige in 1976. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly. She was an academic with a respectable developing career who left and went into administration and quality assurance. As a result there is not enough of an academic career to support an article, and people who contribute in administration and quality assurance don't get covered by publications. The large update in 2015 left out her book Reptiles and herbivory cited by 131 and the article does not have her current website. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fatima Bhutto. Since we're undecided between delete and merge. Sandstein 06:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy (Fiction)[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet wikipedia's notability guideline, the book don't get prominient response from critics and reader and also the article little offer about the book so I think the article should be deleted from wikipedia thus I am nominating this article for deletion. Ominictionary (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 26 May 2017

I have fixed this AfD and added it to today's log (10 June). I am neutral on the merits. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. It could be merged into Fatima Bhutto, but the topic is already discussed there. There's not enough notability to support a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The story may be notable, or at least merits more substantive discussion in the author article, given coverage in media like Dawn [10] and Verve [11]]. But the current article title is inappropriate. As the list of works at Democracy (disambiguation) makes clear, there are at least two other fictional works (by Joan Didion and by Henry Adams) entitled Democracy that are more likely than this one to be what a user is looking for when they search Democracy and fiction. . If this is kept or even if it is redirected, the title should be changed to something more specific like Democracy (Fatima Bhutto story). --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fatima Bhutto I found two WP:RS for this and one is already in the article. That is very poor evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand what will be merged from this article because the book has no notibility at all and also the article don't give any information about this book. The article should be deleted. Ominictionary (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016 § Social media campaign. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced Rebellion[edit]

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

This is an ad for the Gary Johnson campaign. There's no claim that it's a particularly notable advertising campaign. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notable political advertising campaigns are few and far between. This is not one. --Lockley (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect selective merge to Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016#Social media campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016#Social media campaign. I think there's enough material for a short but substantial paragraph, and the subject isn't sufficiently notable for its own page. GAB^gab 22:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016 § Social media campaign per WP:ATD-M. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mysmartprice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An advertorially toned page on a web site that does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Karthikkumarsunder currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

The first AfD in 2015 had low participation and closed as "keep", but the sources presented there likewise did not meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the extensive coverage in reliable sources provided by 49.205.250.157 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysmartprice. The articles in The Economic Times, Business Line, and Business Standard provide substantial coverage about the subject so that Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is met. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.trivial company of no encyclopedic interest.?The only possible purpose of this article is to promote the endeavor. Whether it technically manages to just pass the guidelines is irrelevant, if it is clear that the purpose is advertising. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To see the validity of the sources, read them: #1/their web site, #2/obvious PR, where the company makes claims with little basis, #3/almost identical, #4/ditto, very similar, #5/ very similar also #6 & #7, brief mentions in a list, #8/ back to the original press release, #9 just the same #10 very similar, #11 /almost exactly the same. Multiple press releases do not add to notability , but this is something special, the same press release, published 8 times in different papers. It is clear that the 8 stories, although not exactly copyvios of each other, are based upon the same handout from the company. This to me is very good evidence for the uselessness of articles of businesses from Indian newspapers for notability . They tried another press release here, but they apparently hired someone with enough skill to write one in our format. Original 2 editors blocked sockpuppets from a large ring of sockpuppets [12]; thats's when the article should have been deleted, but people apparently didn't realize in 2015 just how bad sources like these were. Most recent substantial ed has obviously similar behavior. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG. This article clearly fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Not pointing to any editors in particular, but I think some editors are clearly confusing the acceptance of Reliable Sources for establishing facts (even if those facts have been provided by the company or their officers) and the criteria for establishing notability (which is a tougher standard for sources) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just advertising in fact i believe it qualifies for speedy deletion--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per WP:CSD#G5; I don't know why we allow ourselves to waste our breath over things like this~~. Actually, thanks to Nyttend I do know ;) I totally forgot to check the history. Gutted. Sorry about that! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extensive sources that shows notability. The Economic Times source and Business Line sources are great just as an example. Per WP:GNG. May I note that most of the Delete !votes doed not extend beyond "Per nom" or promo without expanding.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What's the actual claim to notability, here? These sources come from recognizable domains, but that's meaningless if the articles themselves are pure puffery. Many of these sources in ostensibly reliable outlets use the same trite phrases. The founder's "relied on [their] core strength - product management and technology" to "gain a slice of the action" is repeated by different outlets, once as a quote, and another time as an original statement! This flattering, empty style of writing severely undermines claims to reliability. This appears to be churnalism based on a press-packet, at best. Subversive advertising techniques, such as churnalism and paid Wikipedia sock puppetry, raise the bar of notability, because otherwise the system becomes even easier to abuse. Until substantial, neutral coverage exists, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV does not trump Guidelines. And IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant when comparing to notable and extensive sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are not notable or extensive sources, so the article should be deleted until something notable and extensive is published, because to let these lackluster sources slide would be accommodating spammers. We may sometimes give borderline sources the benefit of the doubt, but we do not have any obligation to do that. I don't think these are as good as you say, but even if they are merely borderline, the spam issue should not be completely ignored. WP:NOTADVERTISING is policy, which does, actually, trump guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in there for Wikipedia significance. Another blatant promotional driven Indian stanrtup on Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the sources presented and mentioned by Cunard. Despite the high participation, clear consensus whether the sources mentioned are enough to prove notability does not yet exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources had already been commented on by DGG and I agreed with his reasoning and went on to state that some editors confuse the criteria for establishing whether a resource is reliable over whether a reference meets the criteria for notability. Grayfell then also commented on the sources and dismissed them as not being neutral. Nevertheless, here's an analysis on the sources provided by Cunard:
- The indiatimes article is a classic "advertorial" that follows the well-used format of "History-of-Founders -> Description of Problem -> Lightbulb moment -> Extensive description of solution including quotes/photos of founders -> Funding raised". The article fails WP:ORGIND as it is not independent and relies on company materials, quotations from the company and their investors.
- This thehindubusinessline article fails for the exact reasons as the previous source. It is an advertorial (follows the same format) and fails WP:ORGIND as the article is not independent and relies on company materials, quotations from the company and their investors.
- The Business Standard article is yet another advertorial following roughly the same format as the previous sources. It also fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons - the article is not independent and relies on company materials, quotations from the company and their investors.

I see now new material and no reasons to change my !vote. I'd be surprised if others like Jonnymoon96 or Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi or Arthistorian1977 changed their !votes either. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing and DGG's analysis of the sources. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING among others. Clearly created as a promotional article by someone with at WP:COI. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:24, 28 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 move to draft space. Draft tags will be added, and it will be G13-eligible. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Berry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actress. The article was recently moved from the draft namespace without addressing issues. There are still lots of unreliable Funimation sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no improvement for notability since the previous AFD. No secondary source coverage to meet WP:GNG. Funimation articles are okay but they are only cast announcements that don't focus on Berry's career. The titles mentioned are not significant titles, only with web series/Crunchyroll coverage at most for the English version, none made it onto television. Push it back to draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from mainspace, back to Draft I can't find any coverage either, but the fact is this is a relatively young voice actress early in her career. I think Draftifying is a good compromise that allows for the possibility that she may well become notable someday. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to draft - It's been over a year since the last AfD, and though she's had a handful more main or supporting roles since then (notably Yoshiko in Love Live! Sunshine!!), there still isn't much coverage specifically about her at this time. The only source I could find about her was an interview in an online radio talk show. No prejudice against being moved back to the mainspace if/when she gains more coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draft - Not seeing any improvement in this article, complete lack of reliable sources. Esw01407 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closer, please salt this target upon closure. czar 07:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has been well over a year now and still no notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from mainspace, back to Draft I disagree with completely deleting it. She has guested at quite a large amount of conventions as of late and has guested for multiple radio interviews. There are a few other voice actor pages that are currently active which are far less qualified than Morgan Berry's in comparison. Brittany Lauda and Patrick M Seymour to name a few. Voice actors that don't nearly have enough credits to their name. Morgan Berry has starred in many popular titles in a short amount of time. Though I do believe this article needs some work, I feel this actress has more than earned her place on Wikipedia even in the few years of her being in the industry. 47.185.82.61 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draft-ify or outright deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:24, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin S. Morris[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and nothing in the article shows they pass WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation has been added to article that supports editorial integrity requirement for WP:GNG and representation in a permanent gallery collection of WP:NARTIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unjx (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signing comment Jim Hawksworth (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails every singe criterion of WP:NARTIST :1) Not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2) Not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3) Has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 4a) is work has not become a significant monument 4b) His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition 4c) His work has not won significant critical attention 4d) His work is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (This last criterion may have been misinterpreted as having commercial gallery representation, but that is not what 4d means. It refers to institutional collections, such as the National Gallery)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 09:25, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yann Borgstedt[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, especially since notability is not inherited. The article was a created by an WP:SPA. Rentier (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Fails BASIC and GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. There are also significant WP:RS issues due to non-independence. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rentier. He doesn't meet GNG. Several of the sources used are not independent, and coverage via valid sources is trivial.JSFarman (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The_Womanity_Foundation, the AfD discussion for and article created by the same by the same WP:SPA as this one, about the organization this guy founded. - GretLomborg (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some references to re-inforce WP:GNG and did some clean-up. Hmlarson (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator. Some of the sources are questionable under WP:PUS Rrachet (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Multiple new references added. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Dan Teodorovici[edit]

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

No claim of notability; many claims are un-referenced and dubious. "I’m a communist biddy!" is attributed at [13] to a different author, I have no idea if the authors or works are the same. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, the article is hideous, but he's among the more prominent Romanian authors of the present day. Note reviews of his work here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and the prizes attested here and here and here. All these are prestigious literary journals and newspapers.
One or two such links might have been a fluke, but the sheer volume indicates that, indeed, he's notable.
As for I’m a communist biddy!, of course the book is by Dan Lungu, but Teodorovici co-wrote the screenplay, as the article asserts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:25, 27 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 09:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Martinez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC for lack of sources that discuss the subject in any meaningful way. - Mr X 18:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:ENT, she has lead roles as Lina in the ADV version of Slayers and Sora (lead character) in Kaleido Star, Illyasviel von Einzbern the title character in Fate Kaleid Liner Prisma Illya, Yuna Kagurazaka the title character from Galaxy Fraulein Yuna. Slayers, of course, has major notability, but it was for the movie dubs and not the one that was of major importance to American anime. Has appeared in various anime conventions nationwide since 2005. [14] Most of her work was in the 1990s and early 2000s long before streaming came around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This article is a problem because I couldn't find reliable sources, but she has a certain amount of significant roles as mentioned by AngusWOOF. Not sure the answer is clear on this one. Esw01407 (talk)
Weak keep - Weak because not much reliable coverage seems to exist for her. However, given the (relative lack of) coverage for the American dubbing scene in the first place, and the fact that she's had at least three lead roles, I think we can do an WP:IAR here and keep the article, if only for passing WP:ENTERTAINER. I know that guideline recommends coverage too, the fact that American dubbing doesn't get much coverage in the first place makes me think that we should make exceptions in certain cases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She plays the lead role as Poemi in Puni Puni Poemi, and a main character in Elfen Lied. These two roles plus the above would make it pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable voice actress. WP:NACTOR may be met but it doesn't guarantee inclusion.

For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.

"Worthy of notice" - Nope, people don't watch Animes and cartoons for the voices.

"Significant" - Not.

"Unusual enough to deserve attention" - Nah, just another voice actress. Nothing unusual. - TheMagnificentist 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find your reasoning a bit troubling, no people don't watch Animes and cartoons for just the voices but it can be a factor. The rest of your argument boils down to opinions. The fact is that she did have more than one lead role in her work. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. She appears to work in voice-acting regularly, but there's no claim that any specific role is notable. We merely have a listing of a lot of them; the references are generally primary sources about the works. It's possible that the article could survive if secondary sources are found and the "Filmography" section is removed. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the filmography need to be removed? Having one doesn't detract from the question of her notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. BTW the "agent" link leads to unsavoury places. Rentier (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of no evidence of notability Rrachet (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amra Kojon[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Expected to be non-controversial, but PROD nominated in 2006. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication why this gathering of 100 people (yes that few) is at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. A hundred people attending isn't notable, and the only links happen to be official promotional sites for the event. How convenient. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nothing to add to what has already been said. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to In Search of the Lost Chord. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Four Doors[edit]

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

An unnotable track (a great song nonetheless) that fails to garner any independent sources. Perhaps a reasonable redirect but not much else. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 20:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In Search of the Lost Chord, the song's parent album. The song is a plausible search term but does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG as I'm finding only trivial mentions within the context of the album. gongshow talk 08:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 17:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - No specific claim of notability and no references. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 26 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 American Cruise Lines. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Star (ship)[edit]

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

Non-notable ship. I can't find any WP:RS which establish WP:N. There are plenty of mentions in cruise ship industry publications, but those are all essentially directory entries which don't establish notability.

I did find a couple of interesting articles (example: [15]) on a different ship by the same name. It looks like we already cover that in SS America (1939). -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, some comments below added after the start of the discussion I have indented with blockquote. These comments should not be confused as being part of the nomination, which took place on 18 June 2017; and also, the comments were added after !voting had begun. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Beginning of text indented with blockquote]

I am also nominating the following related pages because similarly non-notable individual ships in the American Cruise Lines fleet. I would have no objection to a Redirect to American Cruise Lines for all of these. Of the bunch, American Pride (ship) looks like it might have enough sources to justify its own article. Thank you to User:Nordic Nightfury for the redirect suggestion, which led me to the other ships. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Former American Eagle (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

American Glory (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

American Spirit (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

American Pride (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[End of text indented with blockquote]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue, no argument for deletion Notability is not a deletion argument here. See WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Cruise Lines. Notability is a suitable argument for deletion. Nördic Nightfury 08:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all -- no need to maintain separate article on these nn ships. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ALL Considering IMO numbers are given, it is very easy to verify that the ships exist (American Star). That the articles may need improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whatever the case, "Former American Eagle (ship)" is the wrong name for the article. The reasoning used to move the article is spurious. The common name of the ship is "American Eagle" not "Former American Eagle" and any newer ship with the same name does not affect the name of the ship. It used to carry disambiguation American Eagle (ship) but a new ship showed up, so it should have been moved to American Eagle (2000 ship), and not this weird methods used here, since the ship isn't called "Former American Eagle". The new ship used to be located at American Eagle (2015 ship) before that ship was renamed. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@65.94.169.56: The naming issues can be sorted later. Those boats confined to rivers general take the form Name ([year] riverboat), whereas ocean going ships would take the form MV name ([year]), with [year] only being used if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...or, per WP:SHIPNAME, ([MV]) name ([year]), with [MV] only being used if justified by sources as WP:COMMONNAME. Davidships (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all'. These are not all the same class or size (Pride is much larger than the others). They are separate vessels, and dealing with them in separate articles is no more difficult than combining them. Kablammo (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all - simply because a ship exists does not make it notable. No in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show any of them pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Ganapathy (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable television program. The article relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major network prime time television series passes WP:TVSERIES and the article already has multiple reliable sources such as The Hindu and Times of India. Official Website: Hotstar http://www.hotstar.com/tv/bala-ganapathy/5480 --Thilakshan (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 17:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom Rrachet (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalakka Povathu Yaaru?[edit]

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

Non-notable television program, also unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there might be some sources on Google, but I'm not too sure. - TheMagnificentist 17:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom Rrachet (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable television program. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep prime time major network television series passing WP:TVSERIES with multiple rs references in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Official Website: http://www.hotstar.com/tv/vinnai-thaandi-varuvaaya/11164 --Thilakshan (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I changed my mind. I think the existing sources are fine. - TheMagnificentist 09:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:50, 26 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 01:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce Ping Pong[edit]

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

Local ping-pong club. Not notable. Refs are notices or directory entries DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed an unsourced claim that appears dubious based on Ping pong. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce is not just a 'local ping pong club', it also has a branch in Chicago, USA, and it has introduced a new type of social entertainment venues. Bounce has also been active in supporting local communities and was behind a charity organisation, BAT - Bounce Alzheimer’s Therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahtalks1 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce has been featured in The Telegraph, Evening Standard, The Independent. It is currently one of the most popular entertainment venues in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.209.21 (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- highly promotional; no notability, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neeya Naana[edit]

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

Non-notable television program. Lacks GNG coverage. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom - Rrachet (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank-Michael Preuss[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria for notability. Ref, 1 is a wiki of articles deleted from deWP--operated, oddly, by Wikimedia-Germany. The others appear to be directories. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rework - while is appears to fail GNG, and has multiple issues - I think it can be reworked to be less "listy" and have more valid content. TheKwisatzHaderach (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Citations are wonky, there's no sign of notability, and Herr Preuss would belong in German wikipedia if anywhere. --Lockley (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Most Amused[edit]

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

This was a WP:MILL charity event / television show in 2008 with contemporary news coverage. Prince Charles' 60th birthday party is not inherently notable, and neither is a list of celebrities performing. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stuart Chatwood. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Decay[edit]

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

I have been unable to find information in independent reliable published sources to show that this band meets either the general notability standards or WP:BAND —Anne Delong (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Tea Party; the members and times overlap. However, if there are no sources that show the band used this name, it should be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that The Tea Party is a separate band; however, the article could be redirected to Stuart Chatwood, one of the band's founders.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:44, 26 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 and redirect to Than Merrill. czar 01:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FortuneBuilders[edit]

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

Advertisement for company with dubious notability DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Than Merrill; the article is largely written as if it is a biography of him already. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete^{01:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)} - WP is not Dunn & Bradstreet. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & optionally redirect name to Than Merrill. No reason to preserve article history as the content is strictly WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a web host for this company's promotional messages. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to overcome the advertising aspect of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelreda Leopold[edit]

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

Prolific actress in many notable films, but nearly always uncredited. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article passes GNG. She was covered quite extensively as movie beauty-star in the 1930s-1940s. I was able to access full text of a few of these articles and added the references. Her obituary appeared in Variety, New York Times and LA Times. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Odd that someone with so few actual credits should get obits in major publications, but yeah, she passes GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep seems to be a very worthy subject. Her obits depict her notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:54, 30 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 Wild Thornberrys. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Wild Thornberrys characters[edit]

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

Article contains only six characters and has been tagged for no sources. No significant development or independent notability outside of the series. Recommend merging into the main franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Wild Thornberrys. Sro23 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Wild Thornberrys; one more reason is that the main article is not so large as to require a spin off. Lourdes 15:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as stated above. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Wild Thornberrys given the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 28 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. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of International Property Ownership[edit]

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

While this is perhaps a worthy topic, I question the validity of the article as currently established, particularly as the rationale for removing the PROD was that the original author requires time to update it. It's more sourced now than when I initially saw it (where it was almost entirely unsourced and largely empty a month or so after creation), but at best this is a Draft created in mainspace too early. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly original organization of information, almost all of which is lacking. And I mean "original" in a NOR sort of way... Carrite (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is incomplete and mostly presents trivial data. I would recommend separate pages like Land ownership in Canada if anyone ever wants to re-create this. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly trivial and incomplete list. More like an abandoned project. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Barry[edit]

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

This article and its sources appear to consist largely of self-promotion and puffery. The subject may be notable as in famous for being famous, but the article needs to be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of general notability and the references are trivial; beyond that the article is of poor quality. The pages linked (Living educational theory, Living theory approach, BINA48) might be deletion candidates as well, but I don't support including them in this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability. Reads as if written by a student. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Is written by a Ph.D. student who saw him speak at the largest AR& VR conference in the world. His ground breaking work with artificial intelligence beings and human together learning in university is historic. Admittedly, the page needs help. This is actual history. I don't see the puffery in that it written in factual phenomenological terms and any world's first is a rarity in the modern day (especially one of meaning). Let try to help rather then bury a historical achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtually Human (talk • contribs) 07:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-digit average number of citations according to GS, clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC. Rentier (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous deletes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for original research, which means you do not write articles based on having heard a lecture by someone that impressed you. Claims need to be well sourced to reliable sources, this is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 28 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. Consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salwan public school[edit]

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

Article provides no independent evidence of notability, and is primarily promotional. Just saying that the school is renowned doesn't make it renowned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory Google search (as required by WP:BEFORE) reveals a cornucopia of potential sources, including ones like [16],[17],[18],[19] and [20]. It appears that the school is affiliated with the Salwan Education Trust, which probably deserves an article, too. Pburka (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found 253 hits by a simple Google news search for "Salwan Public School" and the content of the article doesn't seem to be be overly promotional. "Renowned" should just be edited out, "landmark" is credible for local people (a building doesn't need to be the Taj Mahal to be a navigation point), and the other positive claims have citations; on the other hand, it has the negative "news for bad reasons" that is also verifiable and could be expanded. Add this to the fact that the February 2017 RFC suggested that WP:BEFORE should include a search of offline, local print media, and I don't see that we can come to a decision to delete. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a school directory or yellow pages. Fails GNG and EV. ^{Atsme📞📧}

EV? The Evanescence WikiProject? Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Value. Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly agree that WP should not be a school directory, I believe that this example passes WP:GNG and I encourage you to review some of the sources I identified above. Pburka (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. None of the cited sources establish the school's notability. It's a local school with local issues and local acclaim via its own promotional activities. Also, how can a school have two branches? Such a statement is confusing and unsupported by RS. There's no explanation as to how or why the 3 schools are connected. The article mentions notable subjects, such as Pandit Girdhari Lal Salwan but notability isn't inherited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many schools have multiple branches, or locations. For example, consider the University of California. Pburka (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are referencing branches at the university level and I was speaking about K-12. For example, in the U.S. K-12 is zoned into independent districts comprising differently named elementary, middle and high schools which are overseen by their respective school districts in their particular state. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This school isn't part of the US system, so we shouldn't expect it to be organized in the same way. Even in the US, it's not unusual for private schools to have more than one branch or location (e.g. Harlem Success Academy). Pburka (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is of a private charter school that actually is notable because of the coverage it received in RS. There is no comparison to this school which is just another public middle school or two or three with no notability, and very limited coverage, not to mention poorly written and never should have left AfC; therefore, as stated numeous times, the article fails GNG. Again, I refer you to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "public school" in the American sense, as it is not govt owned or govt aided, it is fully self-financed. It's also not a middle school, but a K-12 school. From the disclosures at http://sps.salwanschools.com/, you can add up the numbers and find the main campus has 3,282 students. It seems likely some research will reveal significantly more information. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete:--Per Atsme.Winged Blades^Godric 18:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is that comment by? Wikipedia is not a YellowPages is used for promotional advertising and this has no instances of that at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there's been no forwarded policy basis of why this article is violating any policies, and whether improvements have been considered as an alternative. No one can say sourcing is a concern since it is, therefore satisfies policy WP:V. GNG is cited above yet to quote WP:GNG, "independent reliable sources" are needed and that's currently in the article therefore addressed. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High Schools should be presumed notable and these sort of time-wasting, energy draining deletion debates should be eradicated. If it's promotional, that's an editing matter. SOFIXIT. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite - might want to read this: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Even schools have to be notable or else we'll have a listing for every school on the planet. SwisterTwister the policy is what typically guides all articles as it pertains to WP:N and WP:NOT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says we need independent reliable sources for an article, so how is that any different from the currently offered ones? Also, there are no violations of WP:NOT since this is not: an advertisement, copyviolation, dictionary or social media (or anything close to these), so which violation exactly? Also, as for the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it only claimed the simple argument could be questioned, but there was never a consensus-based policy showing we were de facto deleting any schools. Also, to quote, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, it says anything that suggests we are a YellowPages, and since these usually contain mirror information about their "About", that's not the case in this current article at all. Could you show any serious policy violation in depth? SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the keepers to substantiate WP:N because when an article doesn't pass N it's nothing more than a directory listing (the Yellow pages is a directory that lists all schools in a given area). Apparently the school is privately funded and not a government funded school. What is notable about it? There are thousands upon thousands of schools in cities, particularly private schools whose funders promote those schools and market them any way they can. The notable ones get published, the rest don't. Read the arguments that have already been presented in the delete outcomes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this explicitly ever said why we should discount the current sources so whoever funds it is not relevant; also not relevant is whatever was said at the SchoolOutcomes since this AfD is about this school and how we judge it; however, comments at the thread suggested independent sources which are still in the article, regardless of preference. WP:N and WP:V say that an article can likely be acceptable as long as good sourcing exists and that there's no violating advertising or copyvio. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Notability. Without satisfying N it is just another middle school among many - just like there are plenty of hamburger stands and hardware stores and so on. It is also not covered in multiple independent sources to establish any sense of notability. Just being a school doesn't make it encyclopedic but listing can be construed as a violation of policy per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I've made my case. Happy editing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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