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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article fails to establish the notability of its subject as required by WP:GNG. (One lose citation is all it has.) But there is an even more serious issue: It is written like a documentation page too. There is nothing encyclopedic in it. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:07, 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 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Instead of being encyclopedic, this article is a combination of fancruft and arcana. The subject itself is highly specialized. What is written so far is of no value.
  Just a transparency notice: I received the participation invitation directly from the nom. It seems the nom has sent invitations to a number of people, one of them is actually an inclusionist.
  FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The one ref cited seems to just be a passing mention, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: This seems to be one of these pieces of software that's actually quite widely used, but not remarkable enough to attract much reliable source coverage. If you scan all the way to the end, Google only reports a mere 83 non-duplicate results. The best source I found was this book in German which contains at least a few paragraphs about this software (could be pages, but I can't see further in the free preview). There's also at least a passing mention in "apache mobile filter" two "apache+mobile+filter" other books (in addition to the citation in the article), but I wouldn't call it "significant coverage" based on what I've seen. -- intgr [talk] 08:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per FleetCommand. Jeh (talk) 07:20, 14 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:G7. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

سندھی شخصیات کی فہرست (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 a useless title and unless you read arabic its very unclear what the point of these lists are Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this list is not in English. Note that this is Urdu, not Arabic. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! It's all Greek to me. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-English articles should be translated, not deleted. In this case, though, the content appears to duplicate List of Sindhi people so delete. VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Author has requested to delete, I have put speedy deletion tag Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Buddies (Steven Universe) (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 episode on its own has very little independent coverage and seems to fail the GNG. — Quasar G. 22:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment I'd support a bulk AfD of all Steven Universe episode guide articles, or a bulk redirect to List of Steven Universe episodes. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Power~enwiki: I'm currently in the process of combing through the blue-linked episodes. Some are better sourced than others (worryingly, one of the less well-sourced ones is a GA), so I won't be nominating them all for deletion. Equally, I'm choosing not to perform a bulk AfD as the issues are subtly different each time, and it would overcomplicate the !votes (e.g. if someone wanted to keep two particular episodes but delete the rest while others wanted to delete them all, consensus would be very hard to reach). Hence, they will be covered at separate AfDs. — Quasar G. 12:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article doesn't include much information not already in List of Steven Universe episodes, and isn't a particularly notable episode, unlike other episodes with articles like Mindful Education. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 16:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Could merge to a list of episodes if we have one, but we need to cull entries of episodes that are pure plot summaries (again, plot summaries can happily exist in a list). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 23:58, 14 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking Empire (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 company. Sometimes mentioned in passing, no notable coverage. Yintan  21:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I removed all puffery and promotional content - not much left. Would have been a great speedy delete candidate. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 14 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Yintan  20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Owl Service (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)

Fails WP:BAND. One release on notable indie label Southern Records, which on its own isn't enough for notability, and everything else appears to be quite marginal. No coverage in major music press either. Yintan  21:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Looks like they're notable enough after all. Thanks for your remarks. Yintan  20:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A well-known UK band. Have you looked for any sources? Since when have major labels been a prerequisite of notability? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BAND a notable band should have:

"two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

As far as I can tell The Owl Service fails this. And the other requirements too. Yintan  22:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. If it's a strict rule for the label to have "a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" I can immediately think of a few bands, only on their own independent label, which might fail. I'd better keep quiet about those until this case is decided. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay if a band fails this label requirement as long as they meet one or more of the others. Yintan  08:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just a quick Google found a bio from The Great Folk Discography ([1]), and reviews from Goldmine ([2], [3]). --Michig (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this band is a bordeline case. Which is why I put it up for discussion. They are not obviously not-notable, but they don't appear to be obviously notable either. There are some mentions left and right, but do these satisfy WP:BAND? I'm not sure. Yintan  08:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to meet WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 17:10, 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. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonization of Europe (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)

Misleading article. Claims nations achieved independence after world war 2. That is not what the article demonstrates. Implies various states were colonial powers - produces no evidence. Tendentious at best. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete hopelessly biased title, article content is worthless. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The title of this article is troubling, and the burden of proof goes on the author to show that this is a researchable topic and that all of the content properly belongs under this title. I note that List of sovereign states by date of formation#Europe is much more proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Anything salvageable from this that can be put into a useful list should be salvaged. I'm not enough of a history writer to do that myself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced ahistorical bunk. I don't know why Alinor created this redirect years ago. Since it has been hijacked by an IP, this monstrosity was created with nothing but empty assertions of when various countries (political entities that did not exist at that time) were declared independent. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be an attempt to force the table template established on Decolonisation of Africa, Decolonisation of Oceania and Decolonisation of Asia onto Europe, where it really doesn't apply. It seems to assume that every time a state gains independence, it must have been a 'colony' of the parent state, which is POV, to say the least. (Note: the same IP has been editing the others, and perhaps the edits there merit review.) Agricolae (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has strong potential. Let a thousand flowers bloom.Mishigas (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Striking out !vote of confirmed sock of Kingshowman. SkyWarrior 19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the person who has been responsible for the massive amount of activity on this page, I don't have a problem if you guys delete this. To be honest, I find it odd that this page, and its opposite colonization of Europe, even exists. Personally I'm not sure if ANY European nation can be considered a colony, not even the ones that were once part of the Ottoman Empire, or even Cyprus and Malta for that matter. 2600:8800:5100:38E:B547:1EF7:1C03:CBFB (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the title and the lead of the article I have a problem with. it could be rescued as a summary of the history of the various European nation states - assuming there isn't already an article along those lines. Rathfelder (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Agricolae. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pertinent information would be fine within a more generic European history article. Too many concerns too avoid deletion. South Nashua (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A somewhat interesting exercise, but original research to the core. This is simply not a topic covered in this manner in the secondary literature. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Durkin (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 BLP of a newsanchor with little visibility beyond self referential works from online-news sources which he has worked with. Prod removed at earlier point in time. Sadads (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Reads kind of like a CV. Article subject does not appear to meet notability criteria – Google and ProQuest searches are not turning up in-depth coverage in a multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:TNT, and WP:MILL. Nobody has stepped forward after many days to rescue this mess. He hosts a cable show on an obscure channel. So did my oldest brother. So what? Bearian (talk) 00:36, 16 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. I find it a little odd that this was even relisted---the consensus was clear in the first few days DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Bangladesh Air Force (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)

Could not find context, references. Seemed like an individual opinion page in current form. Devopam (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above comment. Domdeparis (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force as per the first AfD in Jan 2016 & protect from recreation, to avoid future deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's completely unreferenced. Merging the content into Forces_Goal_2030 manually is an option (if properly referenced). I don't think we need to save the history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I wouldn't argue with a redirect, except for the propensity for recreation, and ignoring the consensus of AfD. Editors could be encouraged to expand the existing section in the target article with updated info. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Ajf773; further as noted, does not have proper citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or may be merged with Bangladesh Air Force after suitable modification in the content. --Bhadani (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Jim. If any detail is worth keeping (my opinion is there is too much) put it there. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - with Bangladesh Air Force Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force per K.e.coffman. This is a valid search term, and we should take them to the Bangladeshi military's plans for the future of the Air Force. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect on the condition that it be full protected. The main argument against redirect is that its so easy to recreate. This is a solution that has been used during at least one AfD I have participated in before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick cheese). I think it a good solution to this case as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per nom, per above. Subject and context doesn't warrant WP:SPLIT, and can be sufficiently covered within the scope of Bangladesh_Air_Force. I also think, salting and protecting is a good idea; if in any distant future (cannot foresee happening), splitting seems necessary, an AfC should be used. --nafSadh did say 18:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. No redirect as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, it is not a valid search term. Any extant plans covered in significant detail in reliable sources can be summarized in a single short section of Bangladesh_Air_Force. --Bejnar (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has radically changed since being nominated for deletion and is now looking like the general layout of, for instance, Future of the Royal Navy. I can't see the problem with the existence of the article per se, we have many Future of the <foo> articles. There may possibly be referencing problems (I haven't checked carefully) but the very first reference is to Jane's website. Jane's is the go to source for military matters, is impeccably reliable, and coverage there strongly indicates a notable topic. Anything problematic should be cleaned up. The nuclear option of delete is unnecessary hear. SpinningSpark 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pinging top, active, registered contributors to the two proposed merge/redirect targets (Bangladesh Air Force or Forces_Goal_2030#Air_Force) for their subject expertise. Attention collaborators (AzfarShams—FOX 52—ScrapIronIV—SRS 00—Thomas.W) --Worldbruce (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced fancruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog, and mere speculations about what might happen in the future does not belong here. Articles/lists of this kind are also almost impossible to keep encyclopaedic and focussed, since they attract fanboys trying to prove that their country is better than everybody else's country, by inflating numbers and adding ever wilder speculations about what the future might bring. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete WP:CBALL - Consensus is pretty much unanimous, delete - what more needs to be said FOX 52 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL It is speculative cruft, and wishful thinking. Scr★pIron^IV 17:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A total fanboy article. Even the references provided there has no match with what the article says. SRS 00^t@lk, 18:08, 16 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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails GNG, CORPDEPTH South Nashua (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT; an article with an unclear purpose and does not contain anything useful for the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. It appears to be snowing. This is a run of the mill company. I don't see any reason stories tangentially about the company make this notable. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 16 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) 09:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khosrow Rezvani (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 have no doubt that he does great work or has published scientific papers, but I don't see the substantial, in-depth coverage from secondary sources. (I don't think the short, four-paragraph "in-brief" article in the "local business" section of a local newspaper suffices). He also does not meet the WP:PROF standards, so far as I can tell. Neutrality^talk 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete so promotional, would need to be rewritten from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning above. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. ProQuest search comes up with no significant coverage of the article subject. Citobun (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. His work actually is interesting. I just completed my first research project for grad school on apoptosis and it relates to the origins of animals (long story short: fungi and animal cells die in the same way, and unlike bacteria, archaea, and plant cells). Perhaps this can be re-created when he gets a full chair. We nearly always delete artciels about associate professors. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Weak delete. The GNG, is irrelevant, the question is whether he meets WP:PROF. We judge by the work, not just the rank. (I have proposed earlier actually using rank as a formal criterion, but this did not have consensus. One problem is that the meaning of the rank depends upon the university : Associate Professor means a different thing at Harvard than at USD. Associate Professor is normally tenure, and I cannot imagine Harvard giving tenure to someone with this relatively sparse record. There is only one highly cited publication, with 72 citations, from 2007. He was not the corresponding author, so I cannot tell if he was a postdoc at the time (neither the article nor his website gives a list of positions; poking around, the date of his PhD, not specified in the article, is in 2002; in 2013 he was an assistant professor at USD; he was appointed Associate professor in 2016. ) Not yet ready. Might or might not be when he is Full Professor -- none of his more recent papers have been cited more than 40 times. For notability in biomedicine, we usually like to see at least one paper cited 100 times or more. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 17 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) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louise van Veenendaal (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 reality show contestant. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks significant roles in notable productions. Claimed chart is not a goodchart duffbeerforme (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Her Australian theatre roles are in independent productions and not notable. The American performances do not appear to be notable. Boneymau (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not remotely notable ; a/c the article "She is now very well known for her portrayal of 'Princess Peach' in that particular video. " -- a Youtube video based on the game Mario Bros. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 17 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. Clear consensus : consulates are not inherently notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of India, Houston (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:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. in the last AfD the keep arguments were unconvincing. all the article explains is with routine coverage is what a consulate normally does. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing in the sources provided shows a demonstration of notability. It's just a garden-variety consulate.PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage is run-of-the-mill, as indicated in the nomination. Once the building specifications and other trivia-type content are removed, there isn't anything that isn't already mentioned at List of diplomatic missions in Houston. None of the arguments provided in the previous discussion go beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:05, 12 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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C.J. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO, scant in-depth reliable sources. Weak referencing to such peripheral stuff as construction projects of his firm (WP:NOTINHERITED) and an honorary consulship. Sources for ordinary bio details like birthplace and date are missing. The best source is a weak #14 of 100 'notable people' Forbes list entry. Propose redirecting to the firm, Confident Group of Companies Bri (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete dearth of RS. Not sufficient coverage or impact for redirect/Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a glorified CV on an unremarkable businessperson. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 16 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 18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murali Vijayakumar (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)

Mr. Tamil Nadu is not a reputed enough award to merit an article, especially when its awarded to a lot of people in different weight categories (assuming the person has indeed won the award). Searching provides for no reliable sources to indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE (if applicable), and the only reference provided is a dead link from a non reliable source. Created and edited by 2 single purpose accounts, one of which has the person's name indicating possible WP:COI. Jupitus Smart 18:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- As per the nominator fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG.  FITINDIA  20:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Also does not seem to generally meet WP:SPORTBASIC.--Rpclod (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nominator and above editors, fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 18 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 Long Beach Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Los Cerritos Elementary School (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 GNG, ORG. Redirect to/ Merge with Long Beach Unified School District is an acceptable alternative to deletion here, but wanted to double check on AfD to see if deletion is more appropriate than redirect/merge in this case. South Nashua (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I see nothing to be gained by making this a red link. Customary practice for these schools has been to redirect them to the appropriate school district. That's complicated in some cases for schools that don't belong to a school district in the conventional sense, have campuses in multiple districts, or where (for whatever reason) the school district article does not exist. None of those are true here, so I think the outcome should be clear. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Squeamish. In retrospect, I probably should have just gone down that route in the first place, but I know in the past I've seen it go both ways. The qualification you mentioned here is a good divider between redirect/merges versus deletions. South Nashua (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Long Beach Unified School District. Run of the mill elementary school. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swift (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)

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

• Delete Fails WP:NBAND. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Not sure why the relists but hopefully my vote will seal the delete. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 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) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haruhiko Takimoto (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still a player who has been a pro-football for already a year.

• Keep - my view, which is perhaps not consistent with the letter of the policies, is that a man who is a full-time professional soccer player for the top national competition, is notable within a significant community and therefore should be included. It is not necessary for him to be put on the field to achieve notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability guideline, WP:NFOOTY, requires a footballer to have played (i.e. in an actual match) in a fully pro league to be considered notable. Something Takimoto has not done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardcavell: - no, it is necessary for him to be on the field, that's the exact guideline... GiantSnowman 08:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NFOOTY Spiderone 06:56, 17 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. —SpacemanSpiff 01:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An egregiously promotional article by Jadwetprince about his own family, from an SPA whose contributions include such additions as this. The Jadwets are or were clearly an affluent family of some kind. But the sources added to this page are spam articles -- we're not seeing the kind of truly independent, significant coverage required. The article -- and all this user's edits -- reads as if the goal is merely to use Wikipedia to promote himself, his family and their business ventures. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been revised. Ebrahim Jadwet's paragraph has been removed and new reference sources have been cited. I feel this article must not be deleted. It is just up there to show case the family's legacy and not to promote any business activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadwetprince (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• One such new reference source is this -- another promotional article from a small local publication that clearly would not be considered WP:RS for our purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 13:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are a charity, not a website for family history and news. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 16 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) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Apostolic Church (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)

Despite what is claimed, this church is not actually an ancient Christian Church of the Near East. It appears to be a group founded relatively recently founded by a Catholic priest as admitted on their website. I can't tell for the life of me if they are 100% independent or in communion with one of the Eastern Catholic Churches as a parish. If it is the later, this might serve as a valid redirect to one of their North American Eparchies. but it certainly isn't notable on its own, receiving no independent coverage in reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this article contains inaccurate information, would not the solution be to correct the information rather than to delete the whole article? Vorbee (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Vorbee its not about the accuracy. Its about the notability of the group. I mentioned that the article was not about an ancient Christian group because if it was, that would almost certainly be notable and you could find sources on it. This is either a individual parish that began branding itself as something resembling a sui iuris Church in 2014, or a new religious group all on its own. Since it is so new, if there was sourcing it should be pretty easy to find, but it seems to be non-existent. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- The Los Angeles category shows the real objective of this article, which is probably largely concerned with a Farsi-speaking church there. But this is combined with a mass of unsourced general material in early Christianity in Persia, which is better covered in specific articles or constitutes Original Research. I wish the church that I infer well, but like most local churches it is probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:V; looking for sources on the church or on Baroni, I found no reliable source coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:36, 12 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) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is a professional footballer. However, he has not actually played a match yet, so this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing all applicable notability requirements. I checked today and he still hasn't appeared in a pro game yet. I have no problems with recreation once he has appeared professionally. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Higher (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. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources.

(prodded, but prod declined) DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; a WP:BEFORE search indicates little to no coverage of any WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE in reliable sources with which to pass WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)][reply]
• delete surprisingly little information extant on someone w/ airplay in 16 countries. Found no mention of JBTV appearance. Though there are many ref's on the page, they basically repeat one another. None are in-depth significant coverage. AllMusic not accessible to me at work. Could not find anything at BillBoard.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He has some followers on Youtube and 1.2 mil views, but almost nothing in search shows independant sources and reviews of his music. Looks like a rising kid. WP:TOOEARLY. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Claims airplay in many countries but that is only sourced to his PR (could be true, airplay can be bought). Claims TV appearances but that is only sourced to his PR. Claims appearance on a Cannes winning film but that is only sourced to his PR. PR full of the same promotional garbage that has been posted here [4]. Let's look at that last claim. "short Hollywood film named 'Choices', that won the best short film in 'Cannes festival'." Which Choices, imdb give no clues. What Cannes festival? Clearly not Cannes Film Festival as Choices never won the Short Film Palme d'Or. Straight out lie? 1.2 mil views on YouTube looks good, maybe he will end up on a list of worst viral songs ever and gain some degree of notability but not yet. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 15 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 17:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:NOTNEWS, plain and simple. SkyWarrior 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is about a notable phrase/idiom from medieval times, not about a news event, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  But the only reason this quote is notable is because of the recent event, so I would argue NOTNEWS does apply in this case. SkyWarrior 16:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not true. There are thousands of hits if you search google books for "meddlesome priest"/"turbulent priest", and here are some non-Comey newspaper articles mentioning the phrase - The New York Times, The Times of Sicily, The Telegraph. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, withdrawing nomination. SkyWarrior 17:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this phrase is notable independently of Comey/Trump and has been notable for close to 1000 years. It is laughable that someone has posted NOTNEWs regarding a 100-year old phrase that all people of cultivation, taste, and learning should know. We are here as educators, not as janitors cleaning up after His Majesty Donald Trump's unseemly messes. What is this insufferable urge to scrub wikipedia clean of everything tjat makes Teump look bad(i.e everuthing he either does or says)? Mishigas (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC) — Mishigas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vina Vidai Vettai Juniors (season 3) (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 television program. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of educational institutions in Sylhet. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 00:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Health Technology, Sylhet (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 indication of notability, no refs. Would be speedy, but looks like a university. Killer Moff (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A redirect to List of educational institutions in Sylhet seems reasonable given the lack of sourcing in the present article. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to List of educational institutions in Sylhet. In the absence of refs, Izno's recommendation is sound. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas O'Grady (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)

Cannot find any secondary sources for subject. Fails WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. No awards for the music career or any reliable secondary coverage of other accomplishments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Here is the Triple J Unearthed writeup. It reads as a polite attempt to speak nicely of a band that has had very limited success. If Triple J Unearthed isn't going to break them into superstardom, then neither are we. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:20, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE per low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gumnaam Vikramaditya (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 book/poem is not notable. There do not appear to be any news articles or reviews supporting its notability. The article is an orphan and the lack of notability tag has not been addressed for at least 2 years. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Calderón (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 actor. Quis separabit? 02:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryota Inoue (footballer) (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. He did not play fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spiderone 13:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 12 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 17:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsunari Nagai (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaito Anzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Junto Taguchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Nao Iwadate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - keep Anzai and Taguchi per the comments below, my rationale above still stands for the remainder. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there's a proposition to delete this page. They're all now playing fully pro-football in J3 League. And for Iwadate is even more un-necessary, since he has been in pro-football for a lot of time (since 2012).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispered11 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 09 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Anzai at least has played in two matches this season for top-tier J1 Kashiwa, including starting on May 3, so at least he better fits WP:NFOOTY.[5]. Michitaro (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Anzai and Taguchi. I misread the sources for these two as I expected them to match what is written in the article. Turns out these two have J1 League appearances not mentioned in the article. @Fenix down: You might want to re-evaluate your !vote. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If Anzac and Taguchi are to be withdrawn as they pass criteria, would someone like to actually update their articles to indicate this please. I would but Japanese is not a language I can read. ? @Michitaro: maybe? ClubOranje^T 03:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As it stands despite the fact that certain players meet the WP:NFOOTY criteria they all fail WP:GNG and the subject specific criteria are simply a pointer towards notability. In the FAQ of WP:NSPORT it states

Q2:If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

Now that notability has been questioned the necessary sources must be added to prove that they pass WP:GNG. A reasonable amount of time may be allowed but seeing that they are contemporary subjects this should be very quick and should really already have been done at the creation of the article. Domdeparis (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the remaining two as failing WP:NFOOTY. Just a reminder to Domdeparis that the RfC specifically instructed not to create indiscriminate AfD of articles that pass the WP:NSPORT guidelines. That being said, the remaining two that haven't been withdrawn do not pass the guidelines and as such this nomination is not indiscriminate. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: sorry I have no idea what you are talking about. What RFC? I arrived here as a new pages reviewer and not through a RFC. And an article that doesn't pass GNG and is nominated for deletion is not indiscriminate. Domdeparis (talk) 20:25, 16 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 17:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

an earlier version of this was deleted--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perr&Knight. There is no more notability now than there was then. There are no actual references to the company--just to a very few citations of their reports.

The paragraph to the winery should not be here, even if it is more than borderline notable. The firm does not own the winery. The two individuals do. DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- just a promo blurb on an unremarkable private company. The article on the winery is also highly promotional & created by the same SPA account. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if it met WP:GNG, which it doesn't, it is simply a promotional brochure at this point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 18 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Kinnect (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)

Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the citations are to press release hostings or blog-type sites of doubtful WP:RS status. Two cites to ighthouseinsights.in are possible RS but purely promotional. WP:BEFORE finds only more WP:ROUTINE coverage of marketing agency. Very close to CSD#G11 territory. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom except for one thing: it is in G11 territory. Bri (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bri and G11. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most of the citations to press release hostings or blog-type sites of doubtful WP:RS status are removed. Two cites to ighthouseinsights.in are also removed. Kalpeshchatterjee (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, this does not improve the article. The two Lighthouseinsights.in articles were the only WP:RS apparently available. The article is now sourced to just a self-cite and a press release. This makes it look like it has even less chance of demonstrating notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed puffery and obvious promotional content from the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 14 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) 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Unsourced. Also fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played for Esteghlal F.C. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays youth international football for Iran, and that he will play for Esteghlal in future, neither of which are grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTYand most importantly WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone Rohne Nester (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable (yet). Yintan  17:45, 13 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) 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Welsh (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)

Harry Welsh served as a lieutenant in the 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) (both in E Company and 2nd Battalion Headquarters) during World War II. He did not rise above lieutenant on active duty and performed no acts to qualify him as notable under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, Welsh led a quiet life as a teacher and school administrator with no activity to qualify him as notable under WP:GNG. His character appeared in most of the episodes of the Band of Brothers miniseries but not as a major role and he was minimally present in the book. He was awarded two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm really not seeing much that places this soldier as needing a separate article within Wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like many did his bit in the war but I dont see anything outstanding that would pass the threshold for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Welsh like almost all other members of Easy Company fails SOLDIER and GNG, their only claim to fame being that they were in a unit that had a book written about it and then a mini-series and then many members wrote their own books...Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 14 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 17:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa_Lazo (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 individual was arrested for crane climbing, she is not notable for any other event and the article focuses on this one event. Additionally, there some of the references used to justify the article are based on op-ed not evidence. CommotioCerebri (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:BLP1E. The event does not seem notable, either. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I believe both nominator, and contributor Bonadea have fallen into a common misconception, addressed in the well respected essay WP:Arguments to avoid. Specifically, it can be hard not to have a personal opinion on some of the topics on which we have articles. But we don't delete or retain articles based on our personal opinion on their notability. Rather notability is, usually, established when reliable sources write about a topic, in detail.

  Lazo's thrill-seeking did not just attract considerable attention to her act, itself, it triggered wider discussions.

1. Reliable sources speculated she was the trigger for copycat thrill-seekers.
2. Reliable sources used the readiness of emergency personnel as a justification for taxation.
3. Her thrill-seeking triggered a discussion of mental health issues.

It is significant coverage, by reliable sources, that establishes notability, and, in a case like this, where coverage transcends the event, it is best for our coverage to be about the individual, not the event. Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sure that I did not mention anything about my personal opinion about this, especially since I don't have one (I fully agree that many of the topics covered in Wikipedia are hard not to have opinions on - this is not one of those, not for me) so please don't speculate about other people's motives. :-) I just don't think that the person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, but if other people interpret the criteria differently, the article should obviously be kept, per WP:CONSENSUS. Subjects that are known for one event only should ideally have some kind of lasting impact, and I do not believe that that is shown in this article. (I do love the source about taxes, I think it's wonderfully well written and it articulates my own opinion on tax paying beautifully. I still don't think it is useful as a source in a BLP!) --bonadea contributions talk 17:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I live a whopping one mile further down the same street as the incident, so I remember it quite well — but this is a WP:BLP1E, about a person whose notability and reliable source coverage derives at this point from a single incident. The sources shown here certainly point toward the possibility of a concept article about the phenomenon of crane climbing, in which she can certainly be briefly discussed as an example of the phenomenon in action — but they do not support a standalone WP:BLP of her as a person. Even if this were to be kept, it would need to be moved to an event title rather than her name, because even people who did expect an article about this incident to exist know and remember it as "that woman who climbed the crane" — the number of people who know and would search for it by her name, rather than as "Toronto crane climbing incident" or something of that ilk, is literally as close to zero as one can get without falling afoul of "never say never". (I will grant, for example, that Marisa herself, and her friends and family, know and remember her name — but literally almost nobody who doesn't know her personally knows and remembers the incident by that nomenclature.) Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Article also has a troublingly WP:PROMO aspect (they call her "crane girl." Seriously? Me, I would give this young idiot a Darwin award and put her to work cleaning latrines on construciton sites for a semester or two.) Fails to meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA: WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, or WP:LASTING. And fails WP:BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]