The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CocoIce (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Neither her nor her musical works have been discussed in significant detail. She is simply an up-and-coming artist who participated in the Big Brother Nigeria competition.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Everything Versace1608 said. Subject fails primary notability requirements for inclusion into the encylopedia, it took thorough research by my humble self to discover this wasn't even a hoax/made up character, as i originally believed. A strong delete !vote is my take on the subject of discussion Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, uh, celebrity. --Lockley (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant#The End of the World. (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skulduggery Pleasant: The End of the World (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)

Entirely a plot summary and nothing else that isn't already included in the parent article for the series. -- Alex^TW 23:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Skulduggery Pleasant. I don't see any evidence that individual books in this series are notable, but they're plausible search terms. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: The thought of redirecting it actually crossed my mind about ten minutes after I created this AfD, but I wasn't sure how to proceed, given that I'd opened it. Should I just go ahead with it and request this AfD be closed? -- Alex^TW 04:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support that; with no delete votes I believe you're allowed to do so. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:AlexTheWhovian, Yeah, I think just redirect title to series.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Alex^TW 23:40, 5 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) 08:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bays (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)

Delete: insufficiently notable academic/educator. Quis separabit? 23:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC, WP:N and WP:GNG at this stage of his career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  23:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. apparently not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT, although sources do establish notablility. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Ewing (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)

vanity article JuniperJones (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kundby case (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)

•  Comment. I have added more news sources now. Two sources from 2017 isn't bad for a news story that started in 2015.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One person imprisoned for a failed terrorist plot. The two Danish sources are both from May 2017. No indication that this event has the "lasting, historical significance" required for notability satisfying WP:EVENTCRITERIA. PamD 22:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, I bet that User:PamD isn't from Denmark. This case has been discussed very broadly in all Danish major newspapers since January 2016.^[1][2] The sentence she got is a milestone in Danish law decision. This case will have a major effect on future judgement regarding terrorist attacks. It started a big debate in Denmark about islam and refugees, being part of the arguments to close the border to Germany.^[3] It was one of Denmark's biggest terrorist cases, with a large influence of the future of Denmark. So of course it is important.^[4]--Rævhuld (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per failure to meet WP:LASTING and other criteria on WP:EVENT. Though a quick google search, I could find no national news sources in the U.S. that have even addressed this event. Sure, it may be different in Denmark but there are many similar incidents that have had coverage by English-speaking sources like the 2016 Balkans terrorism plot so that's not enough to say it's worth an article of its own. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rævhuld I have read the links that I mentioned. The Daily Mail and RT are not WP:RS and I'm not arguing that it did not get substantial coverage in Denmark but WP:GEOSCOPE states "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article" so that can't be the only reason for creating an article. Furthermore, you nominated the 2017 Portland train attack for deletion despite it getting far more coverage than this, so we can't have a double standard when it comes to what is notable and what is not. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your train attack DIDN'T get more coverage! It ONLY got more coverage in the USA! Not to mention that your train attack wasn't terrorism - this case is about terrorism and so more important. A lot of your news (even those you write articles about here on Wikipedia) are ONLY published in the USA. And you are not the centre of the universe, by the way. So either we make Wikipedia for America only, Donald Trumpish, or we follow the notability guidelines. And as you clearly can read: national coverage is enough. There is no rule there, claiming the entire event has to be heavily covered in US media to be relevant. Wikipedia is for all of us, not only for Americans. Wikipedia is meant to be for all of us! Coverage in national or international newspapers aren't the only things to look for. Lasting effect is another point. And you are right, it doesn't have a lasting effect on America, so therefore it is irrelevant ... for you.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rævhuld: Please watch your WP:TONE, this is supposed to be a formal conversation. First, the train attack did not get only get coverage in the United States. The Guardian and The Independent are both British publications that reported on it. Al Jazeera is a Qatari source that reported on it. Second, it doesn't matter whether an event was terrorism or not since terrorism is not some magic label that automatically makes something notable. There have been over 125,000 terrorist incidents since 1970 and they all don't get their own articles. This wasn't even an attack, it was just a plot. Furthermore, "terrorism" is a notoriously ambiguous word since events with blatant political motivations such as the Charleston church shooting and Quebec City mosque shooting are never labelled terrorism. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Kamal, Rævhuld, national coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GEOSCOPE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: Ok, thank you, I have withdrawn my vote per this and WP:PERSISTENT. I hope that this WP:AfD can be used as a precedent so that other similar but equally notable events can have their own articles. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Good sources that however needs to be expanded. Seems to fall within notability. Noted case in Denmark.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Case getting international coverage sufficient to support notability, although, of course, the suppression of the perp's name (as per practice in Europe) makes searching more difficult, which may have misled some of the editors commenting on this page. Coverage in Danish and international press needs to be used to expand article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment.Another article which is 'only' a terrorist plot in Denmark: 2007 bomb plot in Copenhagen. And we didn't deleted that article, right?--Rævhuld (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per E.MGregory; and that the coverage in WP:RS now appears to be both WP:PERSISTENT and of WP:DEPTH, which is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my century long friend Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi; that by default also includes agreement to Mr. Gregory's opinion above. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Consideration of Notability is not confined to notability in the USA. Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted ((db-author)) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ups and Downs of Thaddeus Lowe (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)

First (self published) book by non-notable author. Yintan  20:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and G5. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Medit16. Mz7 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Embrace (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)

Non-notable band. Not completely WP:MYSPACEBAND but not meeting the music notability criteria (yet) either. Yintan  20:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and probably a speedy, as this subject has been G4'd on multiple occasions within the past week at Blue Embrace. If this page is not an identical recreation, and no other CSD criteria apply, then the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Embrace would appear to remain valid, as I could not find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  gongshow  talk  01:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's reasonably clear consensus to delete, even after evaluating the sources found by Ammodramus. I see that Draft:Rivigo redirects here, which seems to be a violation of WP:CROSSNAMESPACE, and in anycase, WP:G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) applies, so I'm going to delete that too.

There were a couple of suggestions to salt this title, but I don't see any consensus there, so I'm not going to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed this before, but the nifty javascript automation tools found the redirect and deleted it automatically. Software making my life easier. How about that? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivigo (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)

advertisement. Trivial references- - just announcement and PR. Based on the information provided, thee's no reason to expect better. Recreated several times., by the same single purpose account DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It is true that I have made a few modifications to the draft but that was to incorporate all the suggestions given by the editors. I removed all the content that was deemed as promotional. You can see from the history why each edit was made. The sources that I have used are reputable. I have just made another edit and cited another source. Requesting you to review the same. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt, if it's been repeatedly recreated (I couldn't see that in the logs?) per [1]. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it had moved back and forth from draft to mainspace, but never been actually deleted. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- strictly promotional. This content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Could you please let me know which part of the article do you believe is promotional? I have just stated the facts with references. It does not even have any part which shows the company in positive light. Please let me know so that I can improve upon that bit. Thank you. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There exist various articles on Wikipedia which have a similar structure to the article under discussion. Hiree, Peppermint Hotels, OYO Rooms, Treebo Hotels, Future Supply Chains, TempoGo, Credihealth to name a few. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirmit Arora: Thank you for providing a list of other articles that can be nominated for deletion :) in the meantime, allow me to direct your attention to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which applies to your suggestion. Many thanks! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: As per your suggestions, I have edited and tried improving the page. Requesting you to check and provide your feedback. Thank you. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmit Arora A topic must reference multiple independent sources to meet the criteria for notability. The sources listed do not meet the criteria. The content of this article at the current time is, for me, a secondary issue. For example:

• This firstpost.com article relies on an interview and information provided by the founder and this type of article and format is often referred to as an "advertorial" - that is, an advert posing as an interview/news. It fails WP:ORGIND and is not acceptable to establish notability.
• This hindustantimes.com article fails for the same reason.
• This business-standard.com article also fails for the same reason.
• As does this Bloomberg article
• And this americanshipper.com article
• This thehindubusinessline.com article is debatable but in my opinion it squeaks by and is acceptable. Be aware that other editors may feel that it fails because it only mentions the company in passing and does not discuss any facts or information in relation to the company or its business.

In summary, there is only one (weak) acceptable source listed. Multiple (two at a minimum) sources are required. This dealstreetasia article might be acceptable - it appears to qualify as a reliable secondary source but I would be more satisfied it another editor confirms this to be the case. If another source can be found, I'll likely be satisfied and will change my !vote to Keep. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Thank you for providing the detailed information regarding the criteria. Much appreciated.

I have added a few references as per the guidelines provided by you. I request you to check if these are satisfactory. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmit Arora, please read WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Preferably, avoid any sources that contain photos and quotations from the company founders or other company officers, or sources that use any "announcements" as news stories (as they're simply rehashing Press Releases) including articles with phrases like "Rivigo announced" or "The CEO announced", etc. Avoid announcements of funding. Avoid announcements of people being hired or fired. Avoid lists such as "Top 10 companies that will definitely go big" or such stuff. Sources must be "intellectually independent" and sources that wholly rely on information from the company and their officers do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The new sources you've added all fail for one (or more) reasons as listed above or in WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. Also, always attribute an article to where it was first published. This article might appear "intellectually independent" but it is copied from this article and the author is an employee of Rivigo. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: I would like to thank you one again for your patience and your assistance in improving the subject under discussion.

I have removed the previous references and added three new ones which I believe fit the bill. I request you to please check the last three references in the list. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in my opinion, perhaps the second one of the newest references meet the criteria. The indiatimes.com article doesn't as it is a selection of profiles of "startups" including Rivigo - I regard these as advertorials as each profile is complete with photo-of-founder and with headings like "X Factor" and "Moonshot Year". The livemint article is potentially OK - even though there are quotes from a company officer, the article appears intellectually independent and doesn't appear to be an advertorial and provides information on the usage of FASTags. The Bloombergquint article is only a mention in passing and fails the criteria. So I would say you have two weakish sources (but I'd prefer to wait for feedback from other editors on those sources before !voting Keep. For now, I've withdrawn my Delete !vote). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Thanks a lot for your prompt response, for making me more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works, and lastly for improving the draft on the subject under discussion. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SALT, WP:MILL, and WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: WP:SALT - I am unable to understand why this article should be salted when the article has never been recreated. It has moved between the draft space and the main space after incorporation of the suggestions made by the editors.

WP:MILL - Again I fail to understand why the subject under discussion is common or ordinary when there are sources which state otherwise. For example, the pact with the government or the introduction of FASTags.

WP:SPAM - The only reason the I believe this can be considered as spam is due to the consecutive citations at the end of the article. Those were added during my discussion above with user HighKing. I will remove the unnecessary ones from the article. --Nirmit Arora (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite heroic effort by article creator. The sources are just lacking in terms of breadth and depth to show meeting GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all, and the subject is just not encyclopedic. If anything, the content is more promotional than when DGG tagged it. One would think AfC would set higher standards than to loose this upon article space. Nice catch by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi in sending it back to Draft space back when. Not sure WP:MILL applies-- one need not be "run of the mill" to not meet inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia. Closing admin, nota bene, does not require SALT. Has NOT been multiply recreated.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google search turned up this piece in Economic Times, covering Warburg Pincus's investment of $75 million in the company; the authors of the article appear to be regular Economic Times contributors. Warburg Pincus discusses the company on its own website. A short piece in Mint, and similar pieces in other Indian media, briefly discuss Interbrand's inclusion of Rivigo on their 2017 "Breakthrough Brands" list. I think we've got enough attention from wide-circulation Indian media to meet WP:GNG, and enough detail to support a modest article without relying exclusively on company sources and echoes thereof. Ammodramus (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the sources listed above mention the subject in passing; this is not SIGCOV that discusses the subject directly & in detail. Funding news are rather routine. Still "Delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• UNCHANGED PER K.e.coffman/Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Delete as the sourcing lacks depth of coverage now as it did previously. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Same here No change in my !vote. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've struck my Delete from earlier and regardless of the "quality" of the article, the topic passes as there are multiple independent sources available that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:20, 5 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. There seems to be a consensus not to *delete* this information, and people want it kept in some form. Between the idea of merging and integrating with Internet censorship in India however there is less agreement. Defaulting to a keep, with any merge discussions to take place on the talk page or other venues to seek more consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Websites blocked in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article already covered in Internet censorship in India. Capitals00 (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I merged the important content to Internet censorship in India#Blocked websites as well. Capitals00 (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Split Internet censorship in India. The latter is a rather large article and covers the topic in much more detail. The section Blocked Websites could be removed as its redundant. Rather, a short summarry with a link to this article will be more useful and easy to understand. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Merger will not be an appropriate solution as merging with Internet censorship in India will make the article messy. I agree with what @Yashovardhan Dhanania: has said. In addition to that, there are many similar articles on Wikipedia such as Websites blocked in Belgium, List of websites blocked in the United Kingdom, Websites blocked in mainland China and so on... — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Internet censorship in India and merge relevant content; this is the same topic; WP:CFORK applies.  Sandstein  09:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:FORK and as suggested by Sandstein. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone even read the (sometimes erratic and/or nonsense, regularly badly sourced) "wisdom" on said page?--*thing goes (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Split Internet censorship in India, as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I'm not sure if it's realistic to include a list of blocked websites - surely that list could change all the time, without warning, and Wikipedia isn't a directory. The rest of the content is fine - the list, however, needs a rethink. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Materialscientist (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Performance 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)

Promotional description of normal teaching method. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yintan  19:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I accept that the previous precedents set were for pages that had at least some non-boilerplate information on them. However, some of these pages already have potential candidates declaring an interest - especially London. The argument for deletion would be much stronger for pages that were not guaranteed to be eventually created. That is not the case here and the keep camp has pointed to a policy page that explicitly allows this kind of article. SpinningSpark 12:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tees Valley mayoral election, 2020 (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 is an article with no content and is far too far in to the future, it should be deleted now and recreated in the future. This fails policy on future articles which are nothing more than speculation, the essay Wikipedia:Too soon, should also be read here. The article also has no reliable source media coverage and any which would be generated at this stage would be nothing more than WP:ROUTINE, because the election is simply far to far in the future.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are virtually identical in nature to the main article being nominated, and would if listed separately have identical reasoning for deletion:

Liverpool City Region mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

West Midlands mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

London mayoral election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

London Assembly election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sport and politics (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No problem with articles on the next election. We've already had an AfD on these articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands mayoral election, 2020) which resulted in a keep decision. Number 57 12:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A consensus has already been reached here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_Midlands_mayoral_election,_2020 CarlDurose (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles as they currently stand have no content at all, this needs to be rectified, as simply having empty articles is pointless, and of no benefit. This is way too soon, for these articles, and nothing more than speculation, and content free. Waiting 2 years for content is absurd as reason to have an empty mood. Sport and politics (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless some actual content can be added to the article. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be standard practice to have articles for next elections; hence, all of the pages that fall under Category:Future elections in Europe. Admittedly, those further in the future may start as fairly empty stub pages, but they get built up over time. Deleting them now will just result in their recreation fairly soon. WP:CRYSTALBALL specifically mentions future elections as being appropriately notable. Please also see examples of past relevant AfDs here:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French presidential election, 2022 (2017 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian general election, 2018 (2017 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Assembly election, 2020 (2017 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Irish general election (2016 keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish parliamentary election, 2019 (2016 - speedy keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020 (2015 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makati local elections, 2016 (2015 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caloocan local elections, 2016 (2015 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chempaka by-election, 2015 (2015 - speedy keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Serbian parliamentary election (2014 - withdrawn)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentine general election, 2015 (2013 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singaporean general election, 2016 (2013 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine House of Representatives elections in Central Visayas, 2013 (2012 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hesse state election, 2013 (2012 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Parliament Election, 2014 (United Kingdom) (2012 - keep) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlDurose (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Barbadian general election (2012 - speedy keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (3rd nomination) (2009 - speedy keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawley Council election, 2012 (2011 - not delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2010 (2008 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Danish parliamentary election (2007 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia gubernatorial election, 2006 (2005 - keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK general election, 2005 (2004)

I would propose that the articles in question require expanding, rather than deleting. CarlDurose (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles being proposed for deletion are national elections, and all of the articles which are non-national elections which were proposed for deletion were far closer to the actual event occurring, and had content on the pages. These pages are empty pages and nearly three years away, this is way too soon, as there is no information to go on the pages, other than wild speculation. Sport and politics (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep * Sigh * We had a consensus on this a month ago. There is no new arguments here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no actual arguments to keep empty articles hanging around for years, put forward here, the previous consensus' was we have had the previous elections now. That is hardly a compelling reason based on sound policy to keep articles with no information hanging around. Quoting WP:Crystal directly here "are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable". These articles clearly fall in that clause. There s nothing which can be said about the articles, beyond they are happening in 2020. Sport and politics (talk) 15:08, 5 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) 08:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Jewish Center Day Camp (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)

Advertorially toned page on an unremarkable day camp. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Mrhillcrest with no other contributions outside this topic. Going by the user name, it's likely to have been a representative of the org itself. The copy reflects that; it belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Day camps are unlikely to be notable and this one isn't. I should point out that this was created in 2007. Kudos to the nominator for catching it and shame on the rest of us for missing this blatant case, for so long. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable day camp, indistinguishable from all the other Hillcrest Day Camps in the U.S. and Canada. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While some long-standing Jewish day camps may be quite notable (notable alumni, community cohesion over a wide area (some serving a more important function than synagogues), etc.) and meet GNG - I believe this was is not after a quick BEFORE. The article itself is promotional and poorly sourced (to the organization itself).Icewhiz (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and a clear COI author. - Galatz^Talk 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Content userfied and article converted to redirect. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos (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)

French–Greek academic without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent (third-party) sources. (?) Only outside coverage besides first-party sources is a BBC interview. As for the scholar notability guideline, he is a lecturer with library holdings less than 70 for his top book (the book is not independently notable based on reliable reviews either). Could potentially redirect to Christian anarchism, which attributes him a few times by name (perhaps added by same user?), but it's still an awkward target, hence the deletion recommendation. czar 15:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 15:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 15:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar 15:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm not sure how to use Worldcat author pages properly, but it looks to me like the page you linked doesn't include all of his works. (worldcat and google scholar) It also looks to me like Christian anarchism : a political commentary on the gospel, has 404 library holdings. Another criteria: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." 113 citations, 91 of which are since 2012. (Google Scholar) He may meet another criterion based on the popularity of his works in Christian Anarchist zines, etc., "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." However, this is difficult to document. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even still, per the general notability guideline, we need reliable sources that go into any sort of depth on his life and work. We don't even have any major reviews for Christian Anarchism... czar 21:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sondra.kinsey, thanks for the reviews. I'd be comfortable with redirecting to an article on his book (Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel) based on the sources. (Don't see enough for a biographical article, though.) P.S. What database did you use to find these? Edit: Nevermind czar 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Believe it or not, I missed that list completely, and wish I had seen in sooner. I used EBSCOhost through my local university library (a great resource), and don't recall which databases precisely (it searches multiple simultaneously). I support a move to Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I started reading some of the reviews, but I'm realizing this is going to need a major rewrite to focus on the book and incorporate perspectives of various reviewers. I would like to userfy it by moving the page into my userspace until I can read more reviews and write an article worthy of mainspace. In the meantime, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos should redirect to Christian anarchism, in which he is repeatedly mentioned. Okay? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, but we can also just gut the article in mainspace, leaving the references and a stub that you can expand. Either is fine, but if you don't want to work in mainspace, I'd recommend redirecting the current version and building the book article in your userspace separately. Then we can always change the redirect target later. (Also note that many of those source may not be reliable if they aren't coming from publications or academic journals with an editorial process and reputation for checking facts, so I wouldn't use the weaker of the refs.) czar 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Migner (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 substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Wikipedia is not a genealogy web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. I'd be very surprised if this wasn't written by a descendant; not WP:NOTABLE in any way. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A NN settler in Quebec, of no interest except to family historians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No seeing any evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability shown besides the purely genealogical claims, and no strong reliable sourcing besides his descendants' self-published family trees. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Gaarmyvet --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 08:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Monaco (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 pointless list article - there is only one general hospital in Monaco, and one specialist institution. Rathfelder (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Deleting it would leave a hole in the European template list. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That template is about half redlinks anyway, so I don't see how that is a big issue. It's more a problem with the template. Where there is only one or two hospitals it would be better for the template to directly link them, or else merge the material somewhere else where it can be linked. SpinningSpark 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't have a list article for San Marino, Italy or Poland either. Furthermore many of the list articles are very poor. They include all kinds of medical facilities, most of which would not now be regarded as hospitals. It seems reasonable to limit list articles to places with more than one. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect somewhere, don't leave a hole. Is there healthcare in Monaco or something? or soft redirect to the hospital. And figure out what to do with List of World Heritage Sites in Singapore at the same time. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about Princess Grace Hospital Centre. List articles are only helpful if there is, at least potentially, a list.Rathfelder (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not a directory and no source is provided to show that hospitals in Monaco is a notable topic. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although the "list" has acquired a second entry since the AFD opened, the original entry, Princess Grace Hospital Centre, says in its lead "The Princess Grace Hospital Centre is the only public hospital in Monaco." Per Rathfelder, it looks like this list is never going to go anywhere. SpinningSpark 13:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of hospital in Monaco Weak delete. Delete because a list of one thing seems silly. Weak because, does it really matter? Of the arguments to keep put forth, worrying about whether some template will have a hole in it seems totally unimportant. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Non-resident Indians (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 scope of this list is too large for it to be genuinely useful to a reader. "Too large to be useful" is one of the things that WP:CSC warns against. In this case, even if the list is not already too large, there are millions of non-resident Indians, and probably hundreds of thousands of notable non-resident Indians. This list isn't complete, could never be complete, and would be far too large before it would ever be complete. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. No point in creating this list, as it has no "encyclopaedic use" at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The inclusion criteria of this list means that the article could very easily turn into some sort of leviathan. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my older post at WT:INB and per nom. The number of notable NRIs are just too large and diverse now to have a meaningful list, the only time I can imagine such a list (on a general ethnic group etc) would be when they're small and very distinct: eg List of Ashkenazi Jews. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but there should be a Category, if there isn't already. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Un-referenced indiscriminate list. Most people mentioned are not even NRIs per se (some are globe-trotting Indians and some are citizens of other countries).Jupitus Smart 14:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom and above. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Jupitus Smart. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As always, if future events (and coverage in WP:RS) unfold, this can be recreated at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this player from independent, reliable sources. It seems like his only claim to fame is declaring for the 2017 NBA draft as an underclassmen, which doesn't meet any notability standard nor does it indicate he meets WP:GNG. There are no rules about who can apply for the draft, anyone can do it, even a lower-division player like Cetoute. Down the road, maybe he has a successful professional career and meets GNG, but he has not met notability standards as a college player. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG not met. Maybe this is WP:TOOSOON but without my crystal ball, who knows. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case several other articles related to the draft need to be deleted as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamekrizeni (talk • contribs) 15:50, 03 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true but most of those who starred at higher-profile schools got enough press coverage to meet GNG. It's a case-by-case thing. Rikster2 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but keep an eye out for future progress, just to be safe. No one, and I do mean no one that I'm aware of, even mentions Clandell Cetoute as a potential draft candidate for any team in the 2017 NBA Draft. However, there have been times where I was genuinely surprised about the NBA Draft beforehand (Tanguy Ngombo in 2011, anyone?), so you never know with these cases. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at some point, he gets onto either an NBA team (if only as a two-way affiliate or something like that) or finds some success in the upcoming NBA Gatorade League season moving forward (assuming he even gets to that point altogether). Therefore, while I feel no qualms about deleting this article altogether, it would be wise to remember some of this information in the near future, just in case he does find some success in his professional career moving forward. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 13:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clear (software development) (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)

Poorly written. Poorly sourced. Tagged for PROD in 2006... but the tag was deleted without explanation by an IP. Yaris678 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonably clear and simple explanation of the Crystal Clear Methodology that would give a starting point for someone wanting to go further but I do note that it has barely been updated in the last ten years. The page gets around 30k views per year but Scrum (another methodology) got 1.3 Million views. I also think it could have more references that just Cockburn's book - David Waters 03:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't know how Crystal Clear is supposed to be different from any other Agile methodology from reading this article, and can find no secondary sources that describe this specific methodology. It's too specific a term to redirect to Alistair Cockburn IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Elizabeth Tillman (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 sources in this article comprise only unreliable minor websites or blogs, or interviews with the subject. There are no sources in mainstream media that treat the subject in depth. Fails WP:CREATIVE Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot WP:INHERIT notability from her spouse. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't see any claim for notability. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 13:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Cliff Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades ^Godric 15:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep a quick search didn't turn up much more than this but a club that is this old should really have other sources so I hope someone else will chime in with others. [2]. Domdeparis (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a sports club/team more than 100 years old that hosted world and continental championships and whose athletes (sailors) have won several world championships. There are articles in WP about soccer, hockey, basketball, lacrosse, etc. teams with much less relevance. Sailing is not such a popular sport as others, but I believe a serious encyclopedia must include all sports.--Banderas (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently personal opinions matter very less,unless backed up by policies or WP:RS demonstrating notability.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As above, established the century before last, so you'd think that would make you notable! Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An entity exists for over hundred years.And voila!--it is notable!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's all very well saying that sources should exist, but come on - let's see them. The GNG does not ask people to cross their fingers and hope that sources exist somewhere. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a surprising amount of history in this book. This March 1951 issue of the periodical MotorBoating has a one-page article about a type of sailboat designed by the yacht club. In general, Boating, Cruising World, MotorBoating, and (for brief mentions in the last 19th century) Outing have regular references to the club; some of these are trivial coverage, but there are enough major events there (such as their involvement in establishing the International Catamaran Challenge Trophy), I think, fairly simple to establish. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shakeela Salim (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 inherent notability in being a ward member of a Gram panchayat, the subject in question has not held a post higher then a ward member . She is one of fifteen ward members of this village [3] [4] in the Gram panchayat, Cant seem to find any coverage in the English media maybe someone can check out local Malayalam media but for now she fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN  FITINDIA  12:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Would also require major rewrite as language is not neutral. Significant unreferenced content. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. A ward member would ordinarily not be famous beyond the handful of houses they represent. BSP has no presence in Kerala and being a member from the party is therefore impressive (which is the reason why a ward member is in the State Executive), though nothing exists to pass WP:GNG. Probably made by some WP:COI editor as the editor's name has the constituency name appended to it to form the username.Jupitus Smart 16:57, 5 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) 08:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable, no reliable/independent/secondary sources about it Blue Edits (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent new app. No evidence found to indicate notability, whether by WP:NSOFT, WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS coverage. Refs provided are download sites or user editable sites, and thus not independent coverage. As noted above, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable software and also a promotional article - "one of the best known applications". SL93 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to India's Got Talent. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Saha fulfills the rules of WP:MUSICBIO.

1. There are coverage on Kunal Saha in national newspapers like Telegraphindia, TimesofIndia.

2. He has done several foreign tours.Saha has represented India at One Asia, a concert organised by the consulate general of Japan to commemorate 60 years of diplomatic relationship between Japan and India and this has significant coverage in newspapers.

3. He is an esteemed performer in All India radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmlanDas (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the show he was on, per our WP:OUTCOMES with lesser reality shows. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Almost all of the cites are to self-edited sources; the Times piece is about the generation of new artists, not him, specifically. Please convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. WP:SIGCOV AmlanDas (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above - GNG failure. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mensura Jahić (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)

Typical promotional spam.Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while I agree it is over promotional it does not seem bad enough for TNT and can be fixed. The google news search above shows five quite decent references so WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is that while the subject appears to be notable, the current article suffers from poor writing and an overly-promotional tone. So, we're going to keep this, but somebody needs to do some major editing (i.e. stubify or WP:TNT). I will leave the implementation of that up to somebody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natias Neutert (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 current article "Natias Neutert" does not meet the notability criterias for both authors and actors, or any other circumstance. We shouldn't promote this by having an article in our project: It's an article self-advertising a self-advertiser. Plus, the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia sister project - Neutert is a German citizen - has been deleted twice (just a month ago for the last time) because of his proven encyplopedic irrelevance. I suggest to trust our colleagues and delete the article also here. Richpovertist (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 12:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• According to de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/14._März_2017#Natias_Neutert_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29, the deleting admin believes the person is notable enough for a short article, but they decided the article was hopeless, so WP:TNT was the only way to be sure. I do also believe Neutert is notable enough, but would recommend stubbing and starting over. —Kusma (t·c) 21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear admin Kusma, You are a German living here in the UK. That's helpful since you understand both English and German. But the question if Neutert is notable enough to have an article here is not a question of belief but rather of facts, isn't it? He has published only one book and has never had a major role on screen which doesn't make him an author or a film star. At least according to Google, there is no media coverage in this century on Mr Neutert. I just don't see which criteria this person meets according to our regulations which I have linked above for any interested third party. Starting over respectively TNT would end up in getting the same messy current article which is (and will certainly be again) overloaded with pictures that have nothing to do at all with Neutert (like the Karl Marx stamp) and numerous tiny bits of unimportant pieces of information ... From my point of view, this man is just a minor artist who misuses this project for showmanship. This, however, is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm afraid, this leads to the deletion of the article in question. Otherwise, naming the facts that make him notable should be mentioned here. Cheers --Richpovertist (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  He is an artist/author/activist who was most active in the 1960s to 1980s. According to Google, there are lots of mentions in books in the last century (but he seems less active now). Yes, he is a self promoter, but that is not in itself a reason not to have an article about him. You say we should not have an article about him, but the German Wikipedia discussion ended in the decision to allow an article about him, just not the one they had (which was probably very similar to the one we have at the moment). I am willing to buy the argument that we can find only thousands of minor mentions that do not give us enough to write a properly sourced biography without WP:OR, but I object to characterising this state of affairs as "proven encyplopedic irrelevance". —Kusma (t·c) 05:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read the discussion in our German sister project although my German is a bit rusty (ehem), so I might got things wrong but wasn't one of the major aspects mentioned there that they questioned the sources and pointed out that some assertions like attending Leipzig university in East Germany in the end of the 1960s simply couldn't be true a.k.a. were lies? Talking about the awards, all three were no awards as one of the other users pointed out in their statement. And the "picture issue" (buildings and things that were in the article to make it look more important) was obviously the same in the German article. Once again: If we TNT the current article, someone else will come up with exactly the same using shady sources. And please, don't try to elude. Neutert is a self promoter, and according to your statement this is no objection for having an article. Could you tell me exactly how this goes along with WP:BIO? The section for entertainers reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (no); "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." (no); "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (no). Additionally, the points mentioned for creative professionals do not apply to Neutert either. The statement of the German colleagues can be seen as helpful clues for us but we should also have an independent discussion, following our own rules. I'm very sorry to object you but we usually do not grant self promoters an article here. Why should we do it in Neutert's case? From my point of view, he does not match any of our criterias.—It were a plus though to hear a third and fourth opinion on that. Cheers, --Richpovertist (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it curious that you are so certain what "we usually do" when your account is just a few days old. The problem with Neutert and WP:BIO is that he is a bit of a jack of many trades, and is borderline notable as a journalist, borderline notable as a poet, borderline notable as a performer, while not clearly passing any of the standards of WP:BIO (the most appropriate one is WP:ARTIST's "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"). Your objection against turning this into a decent stub seems to be "people will edit it again" which isn't a problem, as they can be reverted again. The greater problem from my point of view seems to be that it is difficult to write a decent stub, and maybe we shouldn't have an article without better secondary sources (basically, that is how I understand why we have the WP:GNG). I would also welcome a broader discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 21:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I researched Natias Neutert and, based on my findings, he appears notable. He has more than 500 hits on his name through Google Books, and the citations in the article back up this notability. All that said, the article needs to be rewritten b/c the language is very rough and doesn't flow well. But that's not a concern which would cause the article to be deleted.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but turn it into a stub until someone comes along who is willing to rewrite it, to remove all of the blatant promotional nonsense. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 13:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memoria viva de la transición (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)

Does not meet any of the five criteria for book notability. Mathglot (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely as a memoir by a clearly notable man, merging would be more sensible? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps. As a standalone article, I don't see it. The book is a sequel to memoirs by ex-P.M. Calvo-Sotelo about Spain's transition to democracy, a clearly notable topic, but as mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papers from an unemployed person books don't inherit notability from the notability of their chosen subject area. On the other hand, I think it's likely that a new sub-section in the article about the author would be warranted, with consideration for due weight. Mathglot (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the "drive-by comment" at Afd/Papers from an unemployed person, since reviews are included in notability and this book clearly has reviews, I see no point in continuing this. Nomination withdrawn. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- The political memoirs of a Prime Minister (Presidente) are likely to be notable, but this is a horrid article. There appears to be another volume of memoirs. Could we combine them into one article? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep A google scholar search shows this book is referenced some 154 time. I am requesting speedy because the nomination was withdrawn. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Harrias ^talk 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Inter-Provincial Championship (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:NSEASON as 2017 were the only first-class, list A and Twenty20 cricket tournaments. Should we delete or merge these articles? Greenbörg (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2013 Inter-Provincial Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014 Inter-Provincial Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015 Inter-Provincial Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2013 Inter-Provincial Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014 Inter-Provincial Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2016 Inter-Provincial Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2013 Inter-Provincial Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014 Inter-Provincial Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greenbörg (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The notability guideline cited in the deletion rationale, WP:NSEASON, refers to a team's season within a competition, for example Northern Knights in the 2016 Inter-Provincial Championship. Jevansen (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. But it still fails WP:CRIN. Greenbörg (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even though these seasons are before the ICC awarding domestic cricket in Ireland with first-class/List A status, these are/were still the most senior leagues in the country. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: I have read WP:CRIN and they pass them clearly. I will go with keep as well. Greenbörg (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You can withdraw the AfD as you're the nominator, so it can be closed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrew as they pass WP:CRIN. Greenbörg (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 13:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NDMVP College of Engineering (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 college which has not been covered in significant detail by reliable sources Amisom (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - it is a college of Savitribai Phule Pune University. It seems that any recognized college that awards masters degrees is notable, but it could be comfortably merged as an affiliate of the more notable university. The full name is "Nashik District Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj Maratha Vidya prasarak Samaj's Karmaveer Baburao Ganpatrao Thakare College of Engineering." Is there a list somewhere for hilariously long college names? Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Affiliated colleges are separate institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agreed that the article lack citations to reliable sources/or to any source. The link provided by Jack N. Stock seem reliable enough. Hopefully, some editor will wikified the article soon. Even if the consensus now is to delete the article, some project might come along proposing creation of the article. KakhoSimpson (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Degree awarding institutions are considered notable. Pratyush (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  ^{[citation needed]} Amisom (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Longstanding consensus at AfDs. No citation necessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's a longstanding consensus it will be easy for you to provide a citation? Amisom (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just look back over AfD debates cited on this page. Consensus does not require citations. It requires a knowledge of what has gone before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If it went on before then you can link to it to help educate the rest of us who don't have your level of knowledge. See here for instructions on how to do this. Amisom (talk) 11:31, 6 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. SpinningSpark 13:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As WP:BIO1E. Won Survivor in 2009, and has had no public presence afterwards. Currently, all Survivor winners have pages; there is a case that receiving 1 million dollars for starring on a 16-episode TV series meets WP:ENT.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- largely unsourced original research and no encyclopedically relevant prose. Not a public figure. I consider reality TV winners to be akin to beauty pageant winners; they need to have done something notable outside of winning the competition for their articles to be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP:BIO1E Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notable for one single event, so no justification for this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although there might seem to be a rough consensus to delete based on the comments above, I am relisting in hopes of achieving wider participation in light of the previous aparently robust consensus that Survivor winners (as opposed to run-of-the-mill contestants) are notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She would be the only Survivor winner to not have a wikipedia article, every winner has a wikipedia article. But I agree she should do more with her life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmFangirl482123491028490 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. This appears to be a good example of the risks involved in reaching a consensus that a particular class of articles are inherently notable. Such shorthand policy formulations are generally based on the argument that "anything/ anyone of this type must have been discussed in reliable independent sources that demonstrate notability". In this case the answer is clearly not.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jimmy Cavallo. Consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article on a defunct record label has no references. A search finds only incidental references in occasional Billboard lists, with no substantive content to establish anything about the label other than the fact it, at one time, existed. Chetsford (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of record labels: A–H. As we have enough for existence but not WP:GNG or WP:CORP. If it actually passes WP:NMUSIC ping me. Widefox; talk 08:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]