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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pkolo[edit]

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

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

Deprodded without improvement or rationale. Notability is not inherited. Could not find any in-depth coverage of this person to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few notable references to the page. More articles showed up on other sites beside google search.2600:1001:B108:DB7A:3636:3BFF:FEC7:134A (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B108:DB7A:3636:3BFF:FEC7:134A (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Pkolo twitter acount does show a picture his award for the record and only the label can approve that. From the look of it, it's certified with the RIAA2600:1001:B108:DB7A:D050:E7CD:14A9:C480 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC). <ref> https://twitter.com/pkolo/ref>[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage tin WP:RS to meet GNG, under WP:Music. Twitter is not a reliable source. YouTube not a reliable source. No sources listed or available treat in sufficient depth. Notability is not inherited. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. G12-ed by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 05:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FOXTRAX (band)[edit]

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

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

Per WP:NBAND. Combing through the sources, the vast majority are primary. Without significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, and the fact that the band just started in 2015, I think it is WP:TOOSOON for this band to have its own WP page. Comatmebro (talk) 23:53, 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 merge to Githyanki. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 05:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vlaakith[edit]

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

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Githyanki, perhaps. No secondary sources are cited, and the only decent third-party material I'm seeing is (funnily enough) some academic literature that mentions how surprisingly broad Wikipedia's coverage of D&D is. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting... URL? Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jclemens: There's this piece on Academia.edu by Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern. There's a published article that I can't access here. I suspect it's basically the same article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Githyanki. BOZ (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 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 Speedy deleted per A7. Subject does not come close to meeting GNG RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cominaharrr[edit]

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

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

Fictional character that fails WP:GNG. No applicable coverage found via Google. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article is almost all promotional, and I couldn't find any independent sources. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Pure vandalism. Non-notable sophomoric YouTube content fails WP:GNG.- MrX 00:23, 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 redirect to List of online grocers#India. The sources are mostly PR efforts and as such fails to reflect stand-alone notability for the subject. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 05:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PepperTap[edit]

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

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

Unaccountable closed as no-consensus,though the previous arguments seem to make a clear case for deletion . Non notable failed company, with minor new accounts, none of them substantial. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to List of online grocers – Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, whether or not a company is defunct is not associated with topic notability, as per WP:NTEMP. See also: WP:OUTOFBUSINESS. However, this content could also be merged to the List of online grocers article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – See also: Indian Newspapers Search Engine results. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I think you have enough coverage for inclusion in the list. I don't think the coverage about it failing makes a particularly compelling case for inclusion and I am persuaded by Kudpung's analysis of WP:NOTNEWS in the original AfD. A startup where the main accomplishment is that like most other startups it failed, but got some coverage because of the failure seems like a very common sense thing not to keep as an article but to include in a list or potentially related article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable failed startup. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. " Light2021 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).

  This article from Quartz provides an extensive profile of PepperTap. Titled "PepperTap's collapse shows everything that is wrong with India's young internet companies", it discusses in detail why PepperTap failed. This provides "deep coverage" of the subject. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage, "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization."

  The NDTV article titled "PepperTap Review: Great for Groceries, but Better Than Grofers?" also provides critical coverage of the subject. It says:

  In terms of the design, there are a couple of things that could use improvement. For one thing, the Favourites section automatically lists items that are frequently purchased, but there's no way to add items to this section yourself. Secondly, you have to choose online payment first, and then select the mode of online payment i.e. cards, netbanking, or PayUMoney. That seems like an unnecessary extra step and we also wish that the app adds other popular payment options such as MobiKwik and Paytm.

  And the reviewer found the other company reviewed in the article to be better:

  So how does it measure up to Grofers? While the overall applications are pretty similar, there are some differences between Grofers and PepperTap. Grofers lets you choose which store you want to buy from, which you can't do with PepperTap. Grofers also wins for now, because of its wider selection. However, at times you will find better deals on PepperTap, so it's worth it to check both apps when you're not in a hurry.

  The negative coverage disproves the assertion that PepperTap is "releasing articles on major media as paid" on NDTV. If NDTV were paid to write the article, the article would promote PepperTap, not recommend another company.

  PepperTap easily passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  I would prefer a standalone article over a merge to List of online grocers because there is enough material for a standalone article. A merge would result in the loss of encyclopedic content so that PepperTap does not become undue weight in the list article.

  Cunard (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage you are citing exactly the issue for this Startup for nominations for Deletion. These are Press coverage either paid or influenced by marketing team by company. There will be abundance of such news. How does even proves its notability, after the first nominations nothing has been done to this article. Because nothing can be done, If we keep accepting such articles, Wikipedia will,be filled with thousands of 1 Paragraph profile of Startups/ Failed startups. Light2021 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_online_grocers#India. Sourcing is enough for a couple of sentences, but not for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Delete. Once again, editors appear to misunderstand the criteria for sources to establish notability. Finding passing mentions of the company fails. Finding a review of the company's app also fails. Articles that rely almost exclusively on quotations from founders or other company officers or from materials provided or published directly or indirectly by the company fails. That said, of the sources listed above, I believe one, the vccircle article, meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not misunderstanding notability criteria. WP:CORPDEPTH states:

"The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."

The sources I provided above provide significant coverage about the company, its inception, history, mobile app and later decline, and are not particularly trivial in nature, although a couple are shorter compared to others. That said, I'm fine with a Merge to List of online grocers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When coverage about the company is directly attributed to quotes from company officers, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". If the material has been written or provided by the company, it fails WP:ORGIND (this covers regurgitated press releases also). For exmaple this hindustanstimes.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies on quotes. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then Redirect as fundamentally removing promotionalism and barring its involvement here in an encyclopedia is a priority above no other, and promotionalism is something the Foundation has unanimously considered as unacceptable, whatever claims there may be about it. While claims like "Third largest" could be significant, it's not what actually convinces to bypass our set policies against promotionalism, especially when the articles, even when not positive, cite information given by the company employees and this is immediately noticeably without looking far. Because we understand publishers willingly accept company-supplied information (the CEO said, Grofers co-founder said) and articles like that are as a business occurrence itself, not a notability one, it's therefore indiscriminate, and a policy we know well in that it supports deletion without objections, as we should here. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Alex Shih^Talk 14:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False Sexuality[edit]

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

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

With no references, this appears to be entirely original research, and the title phrase appears to be the author's neologism.

The cleanup comment is correct in that this article is nearly incomprehensible, but it appears that even if it were reworked, it would be of no encyclopedic value. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had originally PRODed this before Robert sent it to AfD. I'll go with my reasoning there: this is pure original research which is excluded by WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, personal essay. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Unreferenced, unverifiable, non-notable, neologistic, poorly written essay. --Lockley (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons above. No reason to attempt a speedy delete with this almost at seven days. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamington Party[edit]

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

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

Deprodded. Original rationale: "Very minor party, never registered, does not appear to have endorsed candidates. Some minor coverage basically about how it was not registered, not enough for WP:GNG" Frickeg (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No claim to notability at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So NN one of the sources is about how not significant they are. Lamentably short of coverage in RS to meet GNG for Lamingtons.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Ridge Bus Terminal[edit]

Kent Ridge Bus Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL. It's just a bus stop.Charles (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't seem to have any coverage in independent reliable sources. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, bus stations are not notable except in exceptional circumstances, and this does not meet that. Rrachet (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems irrelevant here. Light2021 (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. By someone else Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge the Divide[edit]

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

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

Per WP:CORP. Established in 2016 - without significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, it may be WP:TOOSOON for this political organization to have it's own WP page. I also have no idea how the "Participation" section ties in with the subject of the article. Comatmebro (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Participation section seems to be lifted from another article, includes a reference called "Factsheet" that wasn't included in the cut/paste. Only 2 sources to the actual body of the article, 1 a post written for Huff Po by Clara Nevins (one of the founders of Bridge the Divide), the other reads as a press release.Tobyc75 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as NN lacking RS, assuming the thing survives my tagging for G3 and A7. The sourcing is mostly lifted along with the text from Youth Olympic Games.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auréli1 aka TIGA[edit]

Auréli1 aka TIGA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional - fails WP:Notability (people), poorly sourced ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google turns up no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and all current references in the article are either primary sources or just typical promo releases that mention his name and nothing more. Fails WP:GNG. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dearth of coverage in RS for GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 21:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jurong Island Bus Terminal[edit]

Jurong Island Bus Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable bus terminal, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Prev discussion was in 2005 so isn't even worth looking at. –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL as utterly non-notable.Charles (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, bus stations are not notable except in exceptional circumstances, and this does not meet that. Rrachet (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with above, not notable. MB 05:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one larger article. I am not sure why are so many transport stop articles are being deleted. There is enough information including a photo, coordinates, opening date. This information is historically significant and Wikipedia should try to preserve this. If separate small articles are not possible, I will myself take out time and create one larger article which has all the information. But I am quite disappointed that so much information is being deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I already merged the content into List of bus stations in Singapore so that we can at least have one article which contains the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They're being deleted because they're all not notable and all fail GNG, I've now nominated List of bus stations in Singapore (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus stations in Singapore) for the exact same reasons. –Davey2010^Talk 13:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 21:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Europe Pacific Rugby Trophy[edit]

2017 Europe Pacific Rugby Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this competition actually exists. The individual matches listed certainly did take place but I can find nothing to indicate that they formed part of a formal competiion with a published table Bcp67 (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence that this is a real tournament. It looks like someone took random matches out of the 2017 mid-year internationals article. It looks like the author has done the same for a few other years too, so we should roll all 3-4 articles into one deletion discussion. CUA 27 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Bcp67 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the deletion, it was never a real tournament likewise the previous articles created by the same user. May want to add these to the discussion:

• 2012 Europe Pacific Rugby Trophy
• 2009 Europe Pacific Rugby Trophy
• 2014 Europe Pacific Rugby Trophy
• Europe Pacific Rugby Trophy

Neither of the "competing" nations ever refereed to it being a tournament nor is there any references to back it up. Rugby.change (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of these articles for all years. This is not a real tournament. While the matches took place as part of the annual mid-year internationals, there is no "Trophy" for aggregating these disparate games. -- Ham105 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghamitra Arts[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

•  Note: An article by the same name was previously deleted. The discussion can be found at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanghamitra Arts. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & salt due to persistent recreation. Not notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage in RS to meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 13:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Jauregui[edit]

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

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

Since the last afD, the only thing that changed is the release of "Strangers (Halsey song)", a promo single where she is featured. It has entered some national charts, in lower positions. It fits her section on the band's article. I believe it doesn't make her notable as a solo artist yet. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I mentioned in the first AfD for this article that she had just released a song. Not only did her second collaboration chart on the Billboard Hot 100, she has also made headlines when she came out as bisexual in a letter published by Billboard and won the Celebrity of the Year award at the British LGBT Awards, beating other nominees such as Lady Gaga and Laverne Cox (from Orange is the New Black). Personally, I think she is a rising star and has a recognizable name apart from her brand in Fifth Harmony. She deserves a seperate article. In fact, skimming through the page as it is right now, it seems she has her share of information to document on her solo endeavors, early life, X Factor journey before being formed as one-fifth of Fifth Harmony and her personal life (including relationships with front-runner Brad Simpson of The Vamps and rumored ex-girlfriend Lucy Vives, daughter of Colombian singer Carlos Vives. De88 (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: I don't believe those two relationships are encyclopedic. These first comments could help. How notable is that award ceremony? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstonepicker: According to sources, it has been dubbed "Britain's gay Oscars". Prince William made a speech when he won the Straight Ally award as well. This definitely is an award ceremony recognized by celebrities and other influential folks. WP may not be a tabloid because I find it perfectly reasonable to mention the relationships that someone of celebrity status has had, especially when those she dated were famous as well. The majority of actors and singers have this section so I don't see why this should exclude Lauren's article. Celebrities who come out also have this mentioned in their articles. Plus, her coming out is backed up with the Billboard article (which is a very reliable source in the music industry). De88 (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: That was exactly the point: just because she's dating someone 'famous' doesn't mean it belongs in a WP article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per above. One song charted in the Billboard Hot 100, clearly notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Speedy because the nomination may not be reasonable. - TheMagnificentist 08:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: 70% of the article is from Fifth Harmony. the rest is her coming-out letter and her relationships. WP is not a tabloid. There's no much to say about her two collabs, that little perfectly fits her original section. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She meets both criteria, general and music. By that, other minor issues are irrelevant. Per GNG, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Per MUSICBIO, Musicians may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: (2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Both are met, I don't see an issue. Her original song charted in France, her featured song charted in the US and some coverage [1][2][3]. Per WP:Split, content from the band's article should be reduced so that more can be added to the separate article. - TheMagnificentist 08:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: Consider this: as I said most of the article is Fifth Harmony information. It is clearly a filler, the split is not justified. Her coming out letter and two singles as featured artist doesn't justify a stand-alone article. As an example, former member Camila Cabello didn't have an article until she went solo, even after her second single as a featured artist entered the top 20 in the US, because her article would have been a c/p from the band's. Jauregui is in WP, as a member of a band, which personal projects are included in their section. Cornerstonepicker (talk)

@Cornerstonepicker: doesn't really matter if it's Fifth Harmony's info. As long as the main criteria are met, she is deemed notable to have her own article. What you just said has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion policies. It's entirely your own opinion. - TheMagnificentist 23:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: I'm well aware how afD talk works, is not enterely "per WP:--". If you just copy and paste information from the main article to make it bigger, you're motivating the split. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This person has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources for her activities apart from Fifth Harmony to warrant an independent article. For example, here are some articles on her single with Marian Hill [4][5][6] and her single with Halsey: [7][8][9][10]. This demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and this information can be supplemented with "personal life" content such as her Trump comments from this month and last November [11][12][13], her citation for marijuana possession [14][15], and her sexuality [16][17].  gongshow  talk  18:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gongshow: her citacion for marihuana possession is encyclopedic? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said only that the details of this person's "personal life" serve to supplement the material - i.e., the first seven articles I linked - which establish that WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are met. The part in italics is what I'm focusing on here.  gongshow  talk  05:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets WP:NMG. DrStrauss talk 20:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect She does not have enough notable information to create her own stand alone article and she is not notable outside the group until she is the page should remain as Redirect to Fifth Harmony#Lauren Jauregui. This shouldn't even be a discussion but since it is I'm willing join the discussion and fight the topic! WeLcOmEtOtHenEwMiLlEnIuM _(Talk) 20:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to her music career, her notability gets an uptick in the last 6 months by being named #1 on the AfterEllen.com "Hot List" for 2016 (Link Here). I'm adding this for notability evidence (and it can't hurt to be added to the article) but honestly, this is a remarkably well sourced article and it's genuinely odd that it's coming to AfD at all. -Markeer 02:30, 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. Seems like the news hits are not sufficient coverage to establish notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gokulam FC[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG; PROD removed for no reason. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator Comment: I made a mistake, I should have referenced Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability here. According to this, clubs are notable if they have played in the national level of a country's football league and/or if they have played in a national domestic competition. Gokulam haven't done either. The Kerala Premier League is the top-tier for football in the state of Kerala but it isn't a national football league, just a state league. They have never participated in either the I-League, I-League 2nd Division, Federation Cup, Durand Cup, or even Indian Super League. These are the nation-wide tournaments. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The standards for clubs are lower than the standards for players, and WP:NFOOTBALL applies to players specifically. The club competes at the third level of the Indian pyramid, which is enough to confer notability on the club. I agree the players would fail WP:NFOOTBALL, but that doesn't apply to the club itself. Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)</r>[reply]

There is no third division of Indian football. There is the I-League and I-League 2nd Division. The Kerala Premier League is just a 2 month state league. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The team is already notable. Team participated in Kerala Premier League. More media references added to article.
  Anish Viswa 15:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The KPL is a state league, not a national league. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A rudimentary news search find several recent articles. Many results from a web search. Looking at this and above comment, team appears to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what any of the articles are about? Do you know if they are anything more than just match reports and repeated lines about wanting promotion to the I-League one day? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a team? I'd think routine publication of match reports WOULD show notability. I'm not sure why you didn't already look at these before you nominated, and you clearly haven't still if you ask that question. No, it's not just match reports. In addition to those, what's wrong with references like this and this? Nfitz (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do those articles confirm notability? They just state that this club could be a breakthrough for Kerala football but they haven't done anything at that point. The articles also state that the club will play in various amateur tournaments. Barely any notability at all. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some of the biggest national papers in the nation (including the links in the article itself). Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. I appreciate Nfitz's comments above may show GNG, but simply citing a google search is not enough, I would need to understand what some of those links actually said about the club before I could change my vote. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't you just right-click+translate and start reading some of them? It seemed like a snow keep and no-brainer, that it was hardly worth the google search, let alone transcribing! Does even even have a multi-league national cup? It's a great indicator where such things exist, but not where it doesn't. Nfitz (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable. JMHamo (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I understand Nfitz's argument but, as things stand, this club hasn't competed in a national competition; it does have plans to do so in the near future. I feel that this is just WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone 17:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are "several" news hits, indeed. They do not rise to the level of significant coverage. Has not competed at a level where one would expect to have significant coverage. Does not meet GNG. Perhaps one day, not today. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a nn regional club. It exists, but that's about it. This content can just as effectively be housed on the club's Facebook page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Boyd (Tennessee)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable politician lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Just running for something does not guarantee notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:04, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: lacks reliable sources, fails WP:NPOL. DrStrauss talk 20:28, June 29, 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable individual with no political electoral history; likely promo/COI-created cruft. Quis separabit? 02:37, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

• Delete archetypical vanispamcruftisement, couldn't find any in depth sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way to early in the campaign to have gained notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What to discuss? Light2021 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Many are notable and many editors have offered their help. The nominator is advised to tread with the non-notable ones on a per-se basis. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 10:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy MacLeod[edit]

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

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

User:Envale has created numerous BLPs which have been deleted because they lack references or do not meet WP:GNG. He has since been blocked indefinitely. After looking over all of his articles which remain in the new pages feed and per this discussion, I have decided to do a multiple AfD for most of them as they nearly all fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR (the latter applies only to some). DrStrauss talk 19:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Berthold Rembolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Mary Clearman Blew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Robert Eccleshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Lois Horton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Larrie Ferreiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• David Freeman Hawke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Frank Card Bourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Morton N. Cohen Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Anne Coldiron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Richard Huloet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Lynn Dumenil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Emidio Campi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Farah Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• James Henretta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Ada Ferrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Multatuli Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Mia Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Gerald Danzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Harvard Sitkoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• August C. Krey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Raymond James Sontag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Wolfgang Hopyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Michael Lochmaier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Bernadotte Perrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Richard L. Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Hettich (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Douglas James Scalapino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Elizabeth Hampsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Truman Lee Kelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Giuseppe Ugo Papi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Susie Harries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Paul Beck Goddard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Robert Hamilton Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Wolfgang Dürheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Alonzo Hamby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Thomas Borstelmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Francisco Calvo Serraller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Alfred Francis Pribram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Harry Mortimer Hubbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Edward Parmelee Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Comment I will check through all of these but off the top of my head, Farah Griffin at least is a clear pass of NACADEMIC #5, as she has a named chair at Columbia. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick google of Mary Clearman Blew turned up a large number of reviews of her book, making her a clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR #3; I've just started adding them directly to the entry (half dozen so far) rather than listing here. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added refs to four reviews of Lois Horton's work plus link to indicate the PBS adaptation of one of her books, so another NAUTHOR #3 pass. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added five reviews to Lynn Dumenil. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added six reviews to Thomas Borstelmann. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added sixseven reviews to Ada Ferrer. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added six reviews to Anne Coldiron plus a ref for her NEH grant. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six reviews just searching on one of Mia Bay's book; I'll look at the other books later. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five reviews from four sources again just searching one of Susie Harries' books, will get to others later. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nine reviews of Elizabeth Hampsten's books, which is still not exhaustive...but I admit I am getting rather exhausted so I will break for now and hope these will be available to resume working on later. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC) Speedy Keep as this is too large of a number to fully examine, and importantly, some of these are in fact notable for WP:PROF, take Giuseppe Ugo Papi, Robert Hamilton Austin, Alfred Francis Pribram, Susie Harries (notable as by this), Bernadotte Perrin (instant satisfying WP:PROF#5) as with Raymond James Sontag, Douglas James Scalapino, Farah Griffin, Thomas Borstelmann, Harry Mortimer Hubbell, Alonzo Hamby, etc. and this was enough to save us at least half of the nominated articles. As has been stated before, PROF is operated separately by GNG therefore is not relevant. Our usual methods of dealing with now-banned users or similar, are if they can actually be notable along with the shown notability factors; that can certainly be the case here. At best, after examining the list, there are some borderline ones, but that's why they can easily be examined and separated by relevancy in order. The one I at best could support deleting is the company one, as there's always restarting given the possibly campaigned circumstances. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the whole idea of a multiple AfD is to meticulously go through all the mentioned articles. If you don't have time to do that, maybe you shouldn't !vote... DrStrauss talk 21:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the idea of these subjects is academics so the applied Notability is WP:PROF, which accepts these cases and the AUTHOR standards. BEFORE is relevant on the nominator's own behalf and especially so when it's a mass-deletion, as mentioned by the WP:AfD nominating guide. Together with the reviews added now, there's no imaginably policy basis for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per ST's proposal. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G5 all those which do not have substantial edits by other editors: Envale (account created 10 Jan 2017) is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Novonium who was blocked on 2 Jan 2017, so all these articles were created by a blocked user in contravention of their block. PamD 21:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Nominator, may I ask if you performed the WP:BEFORE checks (specifically item D1 of those instructions: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects") before putting up this long list of names? Apologies if this is a misimpression on my part; I just ask because in half an hour on Google, I've been able to find so many sources for so many of these entries that seeing them turn up at AfD is perplexing. If you didn't do so, I'd consider it a courtesy to consider withdrawing these nominations rather than ask for other editors' time going through the AfD process, especially for such a long list of entries, without first making the prescribed efforts to ascertain there's good reason to think they're non-notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions, per the Hettich (company) article listed herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions, per the Multatuli Prize article listed herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Too many of these have named chairs, academy memberships, or other evidence of clear notability to consider any group outcome other than a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and the only reason I did not close it myself is that this is too large for the macro--perhaps someone with more patience than I will do it manually. . We do not automatically delete articles by sockpupetts if there are significant contributions by reliable editors, and several such editors here have offered to do just that. They need time to do so. I think I would be able to show the notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF of at least half the subjects.. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 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.  Sandstein  09:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Area redevelopment plan[edit]

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

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

The subject of this article is a type of urban planning document that is only used in Alberta, Canada. A majority of the text is copy-pasted from an old version of the relevant legislation, which is also the only citation. Other planning documents in Alberta (area structure plans, outline plans, etc.) do not have their own articles. Madg2011 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: confusing as to what the article appears to be, on closer inspection it is a non-notable document. Copy-paste is never advisable on WP. DrStrauss talk 20:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's a non-notable type of statutory plan, and the least common of the four types of statutory plans in Alberta. Should there ever be the creation of a Planning in Alberta article, this would make a excellent section with an incoming redirect. Looking around, official community plan is likely also a candidate for deletion or redirect to comprehensive planning. Hwy43 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of cities have redevelopment plans. I don't see this is notable or encyclopediac. MB 04:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Cole[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a radio and newspaper journalist of exclusively "local to a single city" notability. This is based 50 per cent on primary sources that cannot carry a notability claim at all (staff profiles on the website of his own employer, his own writing about himself, etc.), and 25 per cent on blogs -- there are just two sources here that count as reliable ones for the purposes of getting a person over WP:GNG, and he's also been a contributor to one of those two publications as well so it's not fully independent of him either. This is simply not enough sourcing to make a journalist notable -- and this is not a case of "well, I've never heard of the guy", either, because I live in Toronto and I have. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Fails WP:BIO of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) From the article,

  The piece was one of the most discussed Canadian works of 2015

  That's not exactly what's in the source, but if it was so discussed, where is that coverage? Reviews? Responses? It looks like the work has been better covered than his life. The other coverage is local. In the absence of sourcing with better depth, I'd non-destructively redirect to the mention at CFRB#Sundays. (In the future, I'd recommend similar redirects whenever possible before coming to AfD.) czar 19:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to CFRB#Sundays per Czar's suggestion. DrStrauss talk 20:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coverage not sufficient to meet GNG. Do not see sufficiency for a redirect.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable local broadcast news personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Speedily deleted G11, A7 by DGG —SpacemanSpiff 05:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Gir[edit]

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

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

A very slender assertion of notability, which seems largely inherited. The gym (Steel Gym} ha s a speedy tag on it, btw. TheLongTone (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC) ...incidentally article creator account has been blocked as a promotional username...TheLongTone (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. Notability seems largely inherited through prominent clientele. The Gym itself is most likely not notable as stand alone article as per speedy. Given the original creator user SteelGym is blocked, I'd also bring into play a possible COI of the IP and SPA editors for both articles as their edits started a short while after user SteelGym was blocked. In this case I declare my own COI as having been involved in curating Kunal Gir as well as raising the user name for admin investigation and a sockpuppet investigation. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Notability is not inherited. GretLomborg (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 20:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete There is not even an assertion of significance. Certainly does not meet GNG. Wikipedia is not the news and it is not a gossip column. The thing's a bit cobbled together without ever making a good coatrack. I'd suspect a promo piece, based on the foregoing, but the content doesn't reach that level. Perhaps the creators should try some alternative outlets.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 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.  Sandstein  09:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saboo sodium chloro ltd.[edit]

Saboo sodium chloro ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Currently WP:SPAM masquerading as an article. No evidence of notability per WP:NCORP and I was not able to find any additional third-party sources that pass WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 19:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 19:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: WP:CSD#G11. DrStrauss talk 20:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphaned, no independent sources, and a fair bit like an advertisement. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotionalism under WP:NOTSPAM. Article serves no purpose beyond promoting the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, under WP:CORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawa631 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 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 Speedily deleted by User:RHaworth pursuant to CSD#A7. (Non-admin closure). Richard Cavell (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aarshabhoomi charitable trust[edit]

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

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

Very short article, and not notable enough. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No references found that can or could establish notability. Only mention of the organization I found was here [18] that states the charity was set up in 2012. The Wikipedia piece claims 2017. I have edited and cited the Wikipedia piece but again not enough.ShoesssS ^Talk 19:34, 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 and redirect to Matt Robinson (Neighbours). SoWhy 20:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Paske[edit]

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

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

prod removed for no reason. unreferenced BLP for 11 years. IMDb does not confirm WP:NACTOR is met LibStar (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete total lack of reliable sources. No sign of multiple significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Matt Robinson (Neighbours), although that's also a somewhat crufty article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: no reliable sources, doesn't pass WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 12:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable actor CrispyGlover (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. The issues with the article have been fixed. Some commenters mentioned merging the article which could be considered on the talk page. (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The core ideology of socialism[edit]

The core ideology of socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. This article should be deleted per WP:NOTESSAY as it is a personal essay. The article’s creator wrote on my talk page “It is not a"n" essay, but a fact, a thinking which is widely understood.” This suggests that the article is written to WP:PROMOTE an new idea which is not allowed. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you list the specific rule you think that I crossed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 邬山 (talk • contribs)
  • See "What Wikipedia is not". In particular, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research or synthesis, or a soapbox (in other words, it is not vehicle for promotion of particular ideas, subjects, or products). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In essence, the article is based on an interpretation of socialism by a particular speaker at Peking University. Delete as a duplicate of socialism. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I see, but what you understood is not the truth, I will find other reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 邬山 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Improvement finished, delation delated, if any, pls contact again, thanks.
• One mistake of Mr.Rosoft, I didn't intend to promote of particular ideas, subjects, or products. This page is a shared knowledge for everyone to know what people in China believe in now. As such, please avoid misunderstandings.
• Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If this is widely understood as the author suggests, then I could see parts of this being merged into Ideology of the Communist Party of China. But the article is too low-quality to be merged right now. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Edition has been made. Content of Xi's essay has been deleted. 邬山 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is "The core ideology of socialism" to Xi Jinping as the "Three Represents" is to Jiang Zemin and the "Scientific Outlook on Development" is to Hu Jintao? It's my understanding that Chinese Communist leaders are expected to make something like an official contribution to the state ideology, which then would end up getting quite a bit of attention, and would at least be a little helpful for understanding modern China. If so, the article's in bad shape but probably should be expanded and not deleted. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GretLomborg: If that is the case, place the article in Draft: space (as it is not ready to be in mainspace in its current form). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KAP03: I have replied his request to change the content. Isn't the content now fine to put out there?邬山 (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably so, I think Xi's choice may hang between "Chinese dream" and this "Core ideology of socialism". And Chinese dream can be a bit too vague to formally announce. Thus I think the ideology has a better chance. And as for "understanding" China, I think it will be helpful, because the first course about politics taught to me in a Chinese university was about explaining and understanding what these words means, in the context of their official statement, although I prefered my own interpretation in the end anyway.邬山 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possibly some of this content could be a subsection of Ideology of the Communist Party of China? DaveApter (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Merge into Ideology of the Communist Party of China or Draftify so @邬山: can work on it some more. My gut feel is that this is a notable topic (for instance, it's mentioned here [19]), but there's not enough content for a standalone article at this time. I do not think this is a case of WP:PROMOTION or WP:NOTESSAY--more like a case where language barriers are getting in the way. I think it would be helpful for someone with both strong Chinese and English language ability to get involved. I also wonder if the standard English translation of this subject is different than "the core ideology of socialism." - GretLomborg (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote below. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 社会主义核心价值观, you can devide these characters into "社会主义" - socialism; "核心" - core; "价值观" - ideology. I think it is one of the most positive and beneficial ideology in Chinese history along with "科学发展观" - scientific development ideology (official wiki page:Scientific Outlook on Development). And sorry that you or some people might be confused by my notions, but I will still speak in my way - plain Chinese translating into plain English. I cannot stand indirect rubbish understanding. The contents by far were translated by me alone, if some people can help with this page, then I will appreciate that. And @GretLomborg:, I am fresh here; so, can you tell me which sub-contents are necessary here?邬山 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@邬山: I am not sure what you mean by sub-contents, but I think the first basic requirement that you have to meet here is to prove that "社会主义核心价值观" is notable. For that you will need to provide at least one or two reliable sources (such as independent newspaper articles or academic writing) that discuss it. Since you say 社会主义核心价值观 is part of the official Chinese Communist Party ideology, it would probably be best to find something independent of the Chinese government, politicians, or state-influenced media, which probably means Western works in this case. It would also help if at least some of these sources were in English, to help English speakers verify the content. It's also important that you describe 社会主义核心价值观 neutrally and not appear to promote an opinion about it. Take a look at the articles for Three Represents and Scientific Outlook on Development for examples, and also read the Wikipedia guidelines WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@邬山: It looks like @Alex Shih: has made some positive improvements to the article to start to address some of the issues. GretLomborg (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment - I have moved the article to the proper naming, briefly rewrote the lead section and some of the contents. A quick Google search of "Core Socialist Values" returns many prominent results. I am leaning toward merge, but there seems to be enough sources for a standalone also. Alex Shih^Talk 06:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep After Alex Shih's edits yesterday, it is clear that this is a notable subject that has coverage even in Western WP:RS and meets the WP:GNG. All of the WP:NOT issues have been addressed. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong forum. Drafts needed to be taken to WP:MFD, furthermore procedural close. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lisa Mansour[edit]

Draft:Lisa Mansour (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Lisa Mansour|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Dawood Khan 17:14, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huntley Ritter[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability, unsourced and reads like a personal CV El Pharao (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced bio spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedied by RickinBaltimore. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Troll face[edit]

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

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

Page has no content other than the image of the troll face, Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme. DrStrauss talk 15:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G1 or G3 Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. I've gone with A3 and have tagged it accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done ok to close this AFD. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H.I.R.D Music group[edit]

H.I.R.D Music group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An earlier version of this page at H.I.R.D. Music Group was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7. In this iteration, there is a very slight claim to fame, thus this AfD rather than speedy deletion. I can find no sources attesting to the notability of this company. Does it exist? Yes. Notable? No. The sources extant on the article are to a youtube music video, a blog, a music fan site written by 2 people with an Alexa rank in excess of 2 million, and lastly a site with an Alexa rank in excess of 600,000 where there is precisely one sentence about Andrew Grant (founder of this company) but no mention of the company. The minor claim to fame here, of getting to #4 on Hype Machine ...which is a blog aggregator... I can not verify though I have tried. None of the people/groups which have released music through this company are apparently notable either. Looking at the Facebook page for the company; it has 15 followers. This organization hasn't drawn notable attention within the music industry. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Lastly, it appears the person who wrote the article has a direct conflict of interest, and despite being warned about COI issues continues to edit in support of his company. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable at this time and a clear conflict of interest Atlantic306 (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 13:55, 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 speedy deleted by Doc James. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernt Ullmann[edit]

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

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

Suspect paid editing. Editor blocked. Shows all the classic signs of paid editing. Pieced together from primary sources and press releases. No substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Allmost all references mention Ullman as the source of a quote,anf never offer anything substantial about the subject. Obvious attempt at WP:CITEKILL; using many references in an attempt to hide the lack of substance. One reference (8) is even about whether it's "a MBA" or "an MBA".

• [20] is primary source
• [21]primary source, 1 mention, no details
• [22] only mentioned as the source of a quote
• [23] is from the Daily News record
• [24] only used as source of a quote
• [25] only used as source of a quote
• [26] is a website about which indefinite article to use with MBA
• [27] looks like in-depth coverage, but is his own website
• [28] is an affiliated source
• [29] "according to" Bernt Ullmann
• [30] is an interview with Ullmann
• [31] is PR piece from PR Newswire
• [32] is his own website
• [33] only used as source of a quote
• [34] is a press release
• [35] is a press release
• [36] is only used as source of a quote
• [37] only used as source of a quote
• [38] only used as source of a quote
• [39] "said Bernt Ullmann"

Mduvekot (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. This appears to be a large paid editing firm. Have deleted the article based on G5 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 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 no consensus. SoWhy 20:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa Pittaway[edit]

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

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

No evidence that they are notable musician. Sources mostly primary and lack no depth, does not support requirements for WP:NMUSIC. Prod removed by author Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sources were primary and can't find any third party sources. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Major member of two notable bands Watershed and Evolver One. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evolver One isn't notable, and the subject barely makes an appearance on Watershed (South African band), along with the remaining group members who also aren't notable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't judge the notability of subjects based on the current state of coverage in a non reliable source like Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then prove notability. Currently nobody has. Ajf773 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ajf773. Done. Evolver One. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you created an article for a non-notable band to try to prove this subject meets WP:NMUSIC. Notability is NOT inhereted. Ajf773 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I created an article for a notable band. If you disagree you can always test it at afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I have done. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails GNG. no need to redirect to .Watershed. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but I don't see Evolver One as meeting notability requirements.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" WP:MUSIC#1 and "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." WP:MUSIC#2 is not good enough for you? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see the subject here reaching the safe shore of Notability. The tide is still out goingDlohcierekim (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a bit light on for cites, but not a reason to delete. Ouseriv (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't actually given a reason for keep. Ajf773 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C6.--Launchballer 13:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain how this passes C6?? Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. C6 requires a musician to have been a 'reasonably prominent' member of two or more ensembles; by reasonably prominent, according to note 5 on that page, in a small ensemble, ALL members are reasonably prominent. My personal rule of thumb is that a small ensemble constitutes six or fewer members, though I'm not aware of that being enshrined anywhere. The two bands Pittaway has been a member of is Watershed, which meets WP:MUSICBIO#C3 as multiple albums have been certified gold or higher, and Evolver One, which meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2, as its single "Criminal" reached the top 40 in 2010. Better?--Launchballer 19:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer. Read the AfD discussion for : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolver One. There is no evidence yet that the band passed BAND:C2. Only heresay. Also the member isn't even a prominent member of either. Ajf773 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, I'll be commenting there in a minute. South Africa has one chart according to WP:GOODCHARTS, and it's compiled by Entertainment Monitoring Africa. Their site is undergoing maintenance, and Archive.org links don't work either. To meet WP:MUSICBIO#C6, Pittaway need only be a member of a small ensemble to be reasonably prominent. What is your definition of small ensemble?--Launchballer 23:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a bit light on cites = "lacks significant coverage in reliable sources."Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there's significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, revealed by a simple google search. He's the main focus of several articles. This article needs to include those sources, it needs improvement for sure, but that is not a reason to delete it. CrispyGlover (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Steve Roach. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 06:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future Flows[edit]

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

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor. That editor initially proposed deletion with "Fails WP:N" as a rationale, and the PROD was declined. On the merits... honestly, sourcing is a bit lacking here, which gives the impression that Notability isn't quite there. I make no recommendation as such, but we have lots of album titles that redirect to the main article about the artist. Such a result here would not be out of line. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Steve Roach suggests itself :) — fortunavelut luna 14:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suggests what?68.151.25.115 (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Steve Roach - it's a plausible search term. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yongguk[edit]

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

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

Individual fails WP:GNG and article almost entirely contains activities which occured throughout the filming of Produce 101 Season 2 with badly sourced refs from WP:KO/RS#UR. Abdotorg (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, not notable for anything other than being contestant in the show Snowflake91 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Article can be reinstated when the individual in question becomes more notable outside Produce 101. Eugh jei ♥ Kaorin 23:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 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.