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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Fog (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced article about a television series, which airs only on a cable community channel. While that would be acceptable if the article were actually sourced over WP:GNG, I cannot find hide nor hair of even one non primary source to confer notability -- apart from the show's own self-published web page and Facebook, all I can find is glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things. As always, TV shows are not automatically entitled to articles just because they exist, but must be properly sourceable as passing WP:TVSHOW for something. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 23:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 23:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. It's a program on community tv (Rogers TV) which doesn't seem to have had any impact on the wider world; national network TV programs are usually (but not always) notable, but this is much smaller-scale, with a small potential audience (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador) and even smaller actual audience. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection as original author (would suggest possible redirect to Rogers TV if not for existence of Out of the Fog (1952 TV series)). In hindsight, apart from occasional references in other media outlets (e.g. here), there isn't much to point to clear notability for this program. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 22:37, 19 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onads Communications (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 advertorially toned page on an unremarkable marketing agency. Significant RS coverage not found. Sources that come up consist of interviews & other non-independent coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article which does no more than list the contracts of an agency going about its business, sourced to business listings and copies of the same routine contract announcements. Enough to verify the run-of-the-mill basics, but no evidence of encyclopaedic notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and Salt Absolute marketing skit. More advertising. When is it going to end. scope_creep (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I deleted the entirity of the "Business" section as it was unencyclopedic. I would encourage other editors to also edit articles and remove "marketing skit" even if they subsequently !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of WP:CORPDEPTH with no sourcing to show a pass at WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:00, 20 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 Nelson, New Zealand. Consensus is for redirection. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Region (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)

There's no such thing as the "Nelson Region". Tasman District and Nelson City are two distinct administrative entities. They are unitary authorities and as such are not part of a combined region. Some government agencies regard Nelson City as "The Nelson Region" (e.g., Statistics New Zealand, but they do not include the Tasman District as part of it. To try to group these two separate entities together is incorrect and misleading. The term is sometimes used, with a lower-case "R", to indicate a vague geographical area, but that would hardly form the basis of an article (Tasman District covers that pretty well), but it is not one of the country's official administrative (capital R) Regions. Even the hatnote on the article admits as such with its comment For the current top-level subdivision of Nelson in New Zealand, see Nelson, New Zealand. If the city's the top level adminstrative subdivision, then, by definition, this article is about a non-existent place. Grutness...wha? 14:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the creator's talk page, the article was created as a content fork as part of an edit war. See also Talk:Nelson Province Grutness...wha? 14:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for deletion of this page does not stand for several reasons. Yes, "Nelson Region" is not a region in the same political sense as Canterbury, Otago or Taranaki. However, people outside of the Nelson / Tasman area rarely understand that local residents and many visitors still refer to the whole area as the "Nelson Region". This reference is more like Central, East, and North Otago or New England whereby the name pertains to a geographical rather than political region. Any claims that the "Nelson Region" page should be deleted would require the deletion of the Otago and New England pages on the same grounds. A quick search of Google identified numerous organisations that use the term "Nelson Region". These included: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand^[1], The Nelson Mail^[2], Nelson Regional Development Agency^[3], The Nelson-Marlborough Institute of Technology^[4], and Lonely Planet^[5]. --125.236.176.24 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)— 125.236.176.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Let's have a look at your points one by one:

1) 'Yes, "Nelson Region" is not a region in the same political sense as Canterbury, Otago or Taranaki.' Exactly.

2) 'However, people outside of the Nelson / Tasman area rarely understand that local residents and many visitors still refer to the whole area as the "Nelson Region".' Actually, if they refer to it by that or a similar name, it is as the Nelson region, lower case r, in the same way they might refer to the "Kaikoura coast", as a rough geographical area with no defined boundaries. Some of these areas do have articles, sure, but in those cases the areas have significant differences to the Regions and Districts they cover. In this case, almost everything that can be said about the Nelson region is said in the articles on the Tasman District and Nelson city.In any case, locals often refer to where they live as a "region", irrespective of whether there is any official designation as such. So we have information on jobs in the Alexandra region, crime in the Timaru region, and so on.

3) 'This reference is more like Central, East, and North Otago or New England whereby the name pertains to a geographical rather than political region. Any claims that the "Nelson Region" page should be deleted would require the deletion of the Otago and New England pages on the same grounds.' See my previous point. None of these areas (areas - none are listed as Regions) can be effectively covered in articles for either Otago or the individual US states without overloading the main articles.

4) 'A quick search of Google identified numerous organisations that use the term "Nelson Region".' All of them, except in their headers, use the term "Nelson region", and use it in a vague, loose sense. In the case of the Nelson Regional Development Agency, the first major section of the document that is linked in the article is about how to combine activities of two distinct, non-overlapping authorities, those of Nelson City and Tasman District. The Nelson Mail uses the term in the same way as mentioned above for Alexandra and Timaru, or in the same way as Invercargill, if you prefer. Lonely Planet also uses the term in a very loose sense, also referring to places such as the "Queenstown region" and "Rotorua region". As for the Nelson-Marlborough Institute of Technology, it's probably worth noting that Nelson-Marlborough does not have an article, even though it is a commonly used term.

Nothing that you have said in any way indicates that this article serves any purpose or is worthwhile - or belongs as a standalone article in Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wha? Do want you wish! Your attitude confirms that Wikipedia is dominated by liberal biased administrators. Just remember Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun125.236.176.24 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Grutness...wha? 10:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council the closest thing there ever was to a Nelson Region. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Or redirecting to Nelson, New Zealand per Gadfium and Stuartyeates would work equally well. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Nelson (geographic region). 222.153.82.76 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (first edit to WP)[reply]

• Redirect to Nelson, New Zealand and tweak Nelson to remove reference to region. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nelson, New Zealand per Stuartyeates.-gadfium 08:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nelson, New Zealand makes most sense to me. Schwede66 04:53, 20 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article doesn't appear to establish musical notability or general notability. It is also largely a polemic and is non-neutral, and cannot really be made non-neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find many reliable sources. Article is also unencyclopedic. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A WP:SPA article which appears to have been created to promote WP:POV reasons ("it is published to make people know the truth about this issues"). I have removed some of the WP:BLP-problematic material. What is left behind is a mixture of uncited claims and run of the mill links. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and I don't think the possible legal case would be sufficient to surpass WP:BLP1E or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No obvious notability, despite a search - have removed the promotional ELs from the bodytext. - Arjayay (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Gibberish. I just removed one section on WP:BLP grounds. No notability, complete nonsense. Herostratus (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 17 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) 08:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Transnational Migration (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)

Reads like a school assignment with large amounts of original research, clearly falls under WP:NOTESSAY. PROD removed by page creator without comment. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NOTESSAY, OR. Bits and pieces of this can be moved into various immigration articles, but this article doesn't meet muster on its own. South Nashua (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A well thought out and well written essay, but an essay nonetheless. Wikipedia is not the place for essays as they have WP:OR inherent in their nature. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:03, 20 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. Kurykh (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRing (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. One trivial award, and a nomination for a more important one does not in the least contribute to notability. The refs are directory entries of it's own & related sites, and do not indcate any notability The relevant policies here is NOT DIRECTORY and NOT INDISCRIMINATE. Part of a promotional campaign which included an attempt to include articles on its individual products. paid editor, tho it took a while to get them to declare. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless more independent sourcing is found that discusses this company in-depth. The claim might be OK if that was the case, but it isn't now. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of interest outside of the mining industry itself, even if it were notable. This temporarily was even added to "data mining"... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The drilling and blasting software this company is producing is revolutionary. It used to take a mining engineer approximately three weeks to perform and modify the necessary calculations to determine all the results from a detonation. This program can do these tasks in an hour as well as give a detailed cost breakdown of the detonation. This program can be run using any explosive on any terrain. It is a global leader in drilling and blasting software. However, if I try to talk about its advanced features and its effectiveness to prove that it has some form of notability (such as above), this text is dictated as an advertisement. It's a catch 22, one cannot be fixed without the other being an issue. StevenSherry (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: StevenSherry (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

@StevenSherry: Notability doesn't mean you telling us how great your product is, it is independent sources saying that which confers notability. In some areas like this that may be hard to do. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, the issue is in the sources. Since the company is fairly new and their software is just being implemented in the industry, the sources seemed to be lacking. That being said, this company is expanding rapidly, so it's notability will improve with time.StevenSherry (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenSherry: It may be reasonable to discuss a product along with the manufacturer, in particular if the portfolio is not very diverse. It may be easier to establish notability of iRing together with Aegis, in one article. But please, respect WP:TOOSOON and WP:COI along with other policies. Try to find some proper secondary sources, not just press releases (and their copies in PRwires). Because of copyright, never copy from a PR announcement, and don't consider them to be reliable sources. Many products and features are announced, and never released. PR should go to PR wires, not to Wikipedia. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if I put iRing Inc. and Aegis in one article, would it not automatically qualify as notable since it's a software? Meaning no sources would even really be required? StevenSherry (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would software be exempt from notability? But if a company overall is notable, a freshly announced product may be worth a subsection on the company page. And it may just be much more convenient for the reader to have everything on one page, rather than split across many pages. If necessary, it can always be split later. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not what it's indicating in A7 of the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivghgJFBZYE? It's fairly unclear, but it says the software is not take into consideration for the notability of organizations. So, do you believe that if I combined the iRing and Aegis pages that it would be sufficiently notable? StevenSherry (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is wrong, you probably mean this: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I am not convinced either is sufficiently notable, as I have not seen any independent coverage yet. What I am suggesting is that it may be easier for you to write just one article rather than three; and the company and this product seem to be "synonymous enough" to warrant the use of a single article. Above page says:

If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy.

so for now, Aegis belongs into the iRing article; and if iRing is not notable, Aegis probably is not notable either. Please review that notability guideline, and demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". I am pretty sure that any such sources that makes Aegis notable will also mention iRing in a way that would make the company notable (for producing a notable software). So this is what you need to do now: find such sources. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol yes it was the wrong link. This was the one I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7._No_indication_of_importance_.28people.2C_animals.2C_organizations.2C_web_content.2C_events.29 . In the A7 part of the article it mentions something to do with software. It is unclear, so I'm not exactly sure if it is directly indicating that software is notable regardless of the situation. But okay, your points make sense. How many independent sources would one need to qualify as "notable"? StevenSherry (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a fixed number, but the quality matters. If e.g. a newspaper article is just the press release slightly reworded, then it is not worth much. An independent review in a widely known print magazine is much better. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. Note the external link in body -- a hallmark of such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per author's request. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NBAND JMHamo (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article needs lots of work.
  • Last.fm has a page about them.
  • Team Rock has a page about them.
  • Discogs has a page about them.
  • iTunes carries their album.
  • Exit Music has a page about them.
  • There was a write-up about them in Serbian Metal Portal in December 2015.

If someone can find one more write-up about the band then we have something. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm a native speaker, and I investigated a bit. They existed, they held concerts, but even taking into account the small niche of the genre, there is precious little to base an article on. Apart from the serbian-metal.org reference, which is pretty decent, this is the most I found, a short 3-band concert report in an online zine, with one sentence praising the band's performance. No such user (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, StevanPetrov, but that's how things work here – WP:V is one of core tenets of Wikipedia, and it expressly says that Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. On the contrary, we aren't ruled by double standards: the bottom line is, you have (relatively significant) media coverage → you may have a Wikipedia article. No such user (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stevan, thanks for staying with this conversation. The way genres work at Wikipedia is not by smart guys like yourself and myself getting together to discuss the music and its style and context. Rather, the genres come from reliable sources such as music critics. So if we find that most reliable sources say Korn is nu metal then that's what we put down. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a music analysis site like AllMusic or Sputnikmusic. Instead, Wikipedia simply summarizes the stuff that's already published. The best you can do to connect Korn and the groove metal genre is to find reliable sources that make this connection, and cite those sources in the articles and in discussions on the talk pages of articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This was my clumsy attempt to make my first article and it should be deleted. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevanPetrov (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete As requested above by the author who has also blanked the article itself. --Rogerx2 (talk) 23:59, 13 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  10:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Could only find press releases and minor mentions from primary sources which are not enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. The second, third, and tenth sources are WP:USERG. The remaining sources do not discuss the subject. None of the subject's musical releases have been discussed in detail. Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:18, 9 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 Shane McMahon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa McMahon (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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Not notable as host, producer, or actor. Notability not inherited from her husband or WWE. Maybe redirect to Shane McMahon#Personal life? Nikki♥311 21:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Shane McMahon. Not notable enough for own article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Shane McMahon. Not independently notable from the company. She was a co-host, but her stint there wasn't memorable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shane McMahon. THere's nothing to show individual notability. Lacks significant indpendent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak redirect I remember her from Livewire many years ago. I think this is a case where if she was appearing today we'd be able to establish notability. Sources from around that time have long since expired so it's difficult to do that now. Either way, her role was minor enough so that we don't lose much by redirecting.LM2000 (talk) 11:41, 19 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Galaxy (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Except for this paragraph-long bio, there is little written about this person in reliable secondary sources to support notability. This article was originally created as Young Cash, and was redirected to Nappy Boy Entertainment. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete - No indication of notability as per the guidelines under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 21:14, 14 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jann-Fiete Arp (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:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Arp has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Contested PROD, concern was: "passes WP:GNG, there are 3 sources". The article is WP:TOOSOON, and the sources provided are WP:ROUTINE sports coverage involving transfer speculation for a youth player. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 15 May 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) 11:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Coderzombie (talk) 13:36, 19 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is known for announcing one parade. Seems to be a case of BLP1. Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree this is WP:BLP1E. In addition, this 3-sentence article is worded so it sounds like Ray was named to an official job that he will have as a permanent position. It was a one-time event, and given the revolving-door phenomenon on this administration's appointments, there is no guarantee of any position, on any level, a day after any appointment is made.— Maile (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ridiculous example of over-coverage of anything with the slightest link to Donald Trump. AusLondonder (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW Delete. fails all tests for notability. The tiny WP:BLP1E flurry of articles about his role announcing the inauguration say nothing about his apparently non-notable career as a "Film & TV Director/Actor/Voice-Overs/Disability Advocate" I'm quoting tha tform his twitter account, which one of thatose articlelinked to. I do sometimes check twitter before iVoting delete, because with notable people they can clue you in to what's notable about a person. No indication of notability here, and his handle: @AMandFM is the name used by the page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this article about a non-notable one-event announcer. If he gets more gigs, we can revisit this, but right now he is no Charlie Brotman. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Software-defined processing (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)

Advertising skit copied mostly from the [[1]] site. scope_creep (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added additional sources. Article only describes what software-defined processing is. --Andreas.hilmer (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Andreas.hilmer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD.

• Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When I googled the phrase it always came up in terms of software defined infrastructure or software defined storage The actual phrase doesn't come up often enough to be wp:notable on its own. Perhaps a redirect to software defined infrastructure? But my first choice would be just to delete it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:59, 15 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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion, with a recommendation to request protection at WP:RFPP afterwards Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

seems to be a case of inherited notability, fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been moved to userspace, possibly in an effort to evade deletion. It is not a valid userpage and this Afd should continue. There are a handful of usergenerated pages on her but she utterly fails notability, as nominated. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, Eunice Ortom and Eunice E. Ortom have both been serially recreated and salted. Do we need an Afd? Not sure. I will see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: note that I indefblocked the creator per WP:NOTTHERE: all of their contribution has already been deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ymblanter: thanks. But this nominated article is of course also their contribution -- and not yet deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It will be deleted anyway, and if I speedy it now, some of my friends would call it AfD disruption and hold it against me. It happened in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Well, none of the previous versions have apparently gone thru Afd so this is a good idea, I guess. Thank you as always for your help. I'll just add a bolded salt to my !vote, for the closing admin. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to her husband and protect redirect from expansion. The bio shows no notability independent of her husband, who currently appears to have two articles (which should be merged). I think he probably IS notable, but that does not make his wife notable: NOTINHERITED. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:13, 17 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 06:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the customer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable per the WP:GNG as there is no "significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources". The only reference provided in the article is a Wall Street Journal article which requires a paid subscription. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable sources that mention this subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – WP:GNG pass. Entire books are devoted to the topic, and the topic is also covered in scholarly sources. See source examples below; additional sources are readily available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Based on prevalence in sources, this does appear to be an encyclopedically notable concept within the jargon of the industries that use it. bd2412 T 19:19, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Quasar G ^{t - c} 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Got up empty handed and can't find any reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:31, 6 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) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MultiLing – Center for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan (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)

Single academic unit within a single department. The department is not notable, and neither is the center. This is basically a directory listing by a declared paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't seem to be independently notable to the extent that it merits a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE). If its parent article, Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies is kept (it's also at AfD), then it may be worth considering whether the Center is worth mentioning there, but I don't think this article title is a sensible one for a redirect, generally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. No redirect required. --Bejnar (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Moved by Sphilbrick to draft space at Draft:The Reich Device. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Reich Device (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 significant coverage in reliable sources (bestseller lists, reviews from major publications) or other criteria established by WP:NBOOK. Page creator's username matches that of the book's author implying a WP:COI, and the article itself is written in a borderline if not outright WP:PROMO tone.

Initial PROD by User:NatGertler was removed by page creator without comment. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not finding significant sources on this material. There are three sources of reviews listed on the article; Goodreads and the Historical Fiction Society are clearly not sufficient sources, as they're just post-whatever-review-our-members-write sites. The remaining source is less certain (and curious, being an unsigned review written in the first person), but in itself would not carry sufficient weight. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not really seeing any sources that would help with GNG on search. Artw (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The editor agrees that it isn't quite ready for main space, so I have moved it to draft space to work on. Suggest this should be closed until such time as it is back in main space. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 14 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) 08:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Driving Television (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)

Minimally sourced article, with some advertorial tint, about a television series. While this aired on a national television network, and thus would qualify for an article if it could be properly sourced, there's nothing here that would exempt it from having to clear WP:GNG -- but on a ProQuest search, all I was actually able to find was one article about its premiere in a newspaper owned by the same company that owned its parent network at the time (thus not a fully reliable source, because it represents internal corporate cross-promotion rather than independent coverage from a media outlet without a vested interest), one article which confirmed that it aired as a paid program (i.e. the same class of programming as infomercials) rather than as one that the network purchased per se, and a bunch of glancing namechecks of its existence in articles about other things (mostly "Zack Spencer is the host of Driving Television" at the bottom of articles in which Zack Spencer was the bylined author and not the subject.) For added bonus this was heavily tarted up with unsourceable insider baseball from the producers themselves, and once I stripped that because WP:NOTADVERT and WP:COI there was almost no substance left except "this exists". There's simply not enough meat, or enough legitimate sourcing, to deem this notable per WP:TVSHOW. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- strictly promotional with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. Side note, I was also surprised at the quantity of trivial mentions in my searches. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:55, 13 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. Kurykh (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP of a broadcaster, who has a valid potential claim of notability for her association with a nationally distributed sports channel but lacks the reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG for it. The only references here are a blog entry in the context of her past work as a local radio host, and a glancing namecheck of her existence in a newspaper blurb about her joining Sportsnet -- a job, for the record, from which she was laid off just one year later. And I can't find the depth or breadth of reliable source coverage about her needed to salvage this, either -- even on a Google search, I get namechecks and blogs, not substantive reliable source coverage about her. As always, simply existing as a broadcaster is no automatic guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia -- the existence of reliable source coverage about her, sufficient to clear GNG, is what determines whether a Wikipedia article gets to happen or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I note [2] and [3] as newer references. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's not the subject of the Globe and Mail reference, but merely has her existence glancingly namechecked in an article about something other than her — and MarketWired is a press release distribution platform, in which the "coverage" was written by her own employer rather than by an independent source. So no, neither of those sources counts for anything at all toward getting her over a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a nn TV personality; sources above do not meet the WP:SIGCOV bar and are passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cargo Carriers Flight 1260 (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)

Tragic but not notable cargo plane accident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing in the refs cited show that this is anything more than WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Very common occurrence with no lasting effects beyond the deaths of the two people involved. No more notable than any single car collision with a stationary object that kills two people. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under category G5 of the CSD as a creation by a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick with no substantial edits by others - all edits by other users have been to fix mistakes by the creator or related to notability and this AfD. If speedy deletion is declined, then it should be deleted for lack of notability as per the two persons' arguments above anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - iregardless of who started the article the event is still notable, aircraft accidents do not happen every day. Happening as recently as it did and with the investigation ongoing there is no reason not to expect an expansion in content in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the size of the aircraft makes it relevant. Wykx (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All aviation accidents should be added to Wikipedia for further reference in the future for other future Wiki Users.GoMan195531 4:31 PM (MT-Mountain Time), May 7, 2017. —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• None of those arguments hold water. "Keep because it might become notable in the future", "Keep because it's bigger than some smaller aircraft", "Keep because Wikipedia should document every aircraft crash ever" - no. YSSYguy (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, those are all very spurious arguments and not based upon policy or guidelines. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't report on every accident that happens, just on ones that have some sort of lasting effect in terms of changes to procedures, airworthiness directives of similar. We don't have articles on every boating accident, car accident or train accident. Why not? Because they are very common occurrences, just like this accident. - Ahunt (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been only 2 accidents of plane of this size so far this year so it is not so common. Moreover in large aviation accident, there is always an inquiry with some recommandations to the industry. Wykx (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a large aircraft. Large aircraft are defined as having a gross take-off weight of 300,000 lbs of more, the Shorts 330-200 is 22,900 lbs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been at least fourteen accidents involving aircraft of this size this year and every aircraft accident is investigated regardless of how small the aircraft is; and nowhere on Wikipedia does it say those arbitrary criteria establish notability. YSSYguy (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt meaning Heavy (aeronautics) whch doesn't even include some A300 or A321. At least Shorts 330-200 is definitely a medium and not light. Size of the aircraft implies that the number of passengers potentially impacted in a single-flight is higher and thus is notable. This is for example notable that such an aircraft type doesn't have recorders. Wykx (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The carriage of flight recorders is mandatory for certain classes of aircraft engaged in certain types of operation, therefore the lack of recorders means that the FAA decided in advance that it is not necessary to conduct a detailed investigation in the event of this aircraft crashing. YSSYguy (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it is because this particular aircraft was built before 1997 but for the same models built later on I think it is mandatory to have one. Wykx (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Short 330s built post-1997, production ended in 1992. YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - not a private plane. All cargo accident are important even if with a small number of deaths. - EugεnS¡m¡on 06:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Deaths in an accident", "owned by a company" and "in commercial use" do not automatically confer notability, what counts is that there is significant coverage; this crash has not generated such coverage, there has been more discussion at this AfD than of the event itself. YSSYguy (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the US networks/newspapers have reported it and even following steps of the NSTB investigation, with articles during the last four days. Isn't it enough?? Wykx (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. That Wikipedia policy spells it out, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So does it mean we have to delete all articles that are not at least one year-old to check enduring notability? There is not only news coverage but also specialized aviation sites that are highliting this crash. Wykx (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires that only accidents that have enduring notability are kept on Wikipedia. We don't have articles on every car accident in which two people are killed, nor boating accident, nor bicycle, train, or any other kind of accident, unless there is some indication that something changed as a result of the accident, like procedures, laws, regulations, products recalls, airworthiness directives or something similar. Why would we treat aircraft accidents as if everyone is notable when no other transportation accidents are treated that way? Just because the media loves sensationalism and jumps all over every aircraft accident doesn't mean Wikipedia does, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Despite your claim that the aviation media is covering this accident it is telling that in fact the world's lead aviation media sites, including www.avweb.com, www.aopa.org and www.flyingmag.com have not covered this accident. - Ahunt (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avweb publishes only these informations a month later... AOPA is centered on smaller aircrafts. Another site like flightglobal has reported it on [4]. Wykx (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Avweb publishes only these informations a month later" - no, that is not correct. For instance they published the much more notable ICON A5 crash the same day it happened, as did AOPA and Flying. The reason none of those leading aviation news outlets didn't cover it is precisely the same reason we are debating deleting the article here, because is is a commonplace event with no lasting effects and not notable. The Flight Global article you cited also shows that there is nothing notable about the accident, no indication it will lead to any changes in anything. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it may be too soon for this article to appear on Wikipedia yet. Very little is known about the crash yet (such as mechanical faults etc), and even if these are revealed, it's not going to be anything more than a tragic accident, and nothing more than newspaper filler. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 21:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for reasons explained by Eugεn S¡m¡on and Wykx. Ouseriv (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Nothing, as yet, to indicate it was anything other than a routine accident. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dont see anything noteworthy in this accident that would pass the bar for a stand-alone article, light cargo aircraft crash rather frequently so would need something out of the norm to be included. Might be worth a mention at List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft but that list if a bit neglected. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are lots of accidents involving small aircraft like the Short 330 and are mentioned on the Short 330 and Short 360 pages. There are also lots of other small planes that have been mentioned but not had actual articles written about them. This should be deleted as it doesn't differ from the other crashes and there is nothing out of the ordinary about it. Somebody created this article straight off the news without researching it properly and if this crash results in a big revelation or change to the aviation industry it could be considered for re-entry but at the moment nothing warrants an article on this crash. Flashjacket348 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As WP:AIRCRASH explains it, articles related to incidents are best dedicated to those that result in changes in design, prodedures, or regulations. While notability can be largely subjective, change is not something that cannot happen during (or right after) an investigation. However, a deletion will not make this content disappear, as it is linked to two different cargo airline articles; its content can be included there. -SteveCof00 (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough - per reasons given above. K347 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Sario528 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH has been cited here several times now. However the lead of that essay clearly states:

"This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles.

By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." (my italics)

I think that because this accident can certainly be included in an airport, airline or aircraft article then the question of whether a stand-alone article should exist in addition to these is about the general notability criteria and I think this article can be kept.K347 (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then what about all the Shorts 330 and Shorts 360 crashes that are similar to this one? They haven't been included as full articles but are mentioned on aircraft and airline pages, with a few involving Air Cargo Carriers. Why aren't these included as articles? Why aren't you creating pages for all of them? If you check you will find at least 5 similar accidents. If any important details or major safety changes come about as a result of this accident, then it can be re-included. For the time being it can just be mentioned in the accidents and incidents sections on the Shorts 330 and 360 pages, and various airline and airport articles. It could also be included on the list of commercial cargo aircraft accidents and incidents but it depends on the criteria. Flashjacket348 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : WP:AIRCRASH, though only an essay lays out sensible criteria for aviation accident articles. This clearly falls outside that essay's bounds. Actual policy WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER clearly place this article in Delete--Petebutt (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After all the discussion above, Petebutt gives the most cogent and succinct argument: fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 26 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiruy Amanuel (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)

Little coverage in independent third party sources. Most coverage seems to be in passing mentions; the company Gebeya may be notable but Hiruy Amanuel does not appear to be. -- Dane ^talk 16:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I concur with OP, Gebeya might be notable, but Hiruy Amanuel definitely doesn't have enough coverage. Waggie (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Society for Creative Anachronism. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 06:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estrella War (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)

Sourced entirely to websites of the people who put on the event. I was able to find one independent reliable source covering this; not enough to show notability. Should be deleted or merged into Society for Creative Anachronism. RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Society for Creative Anachronism. There are no significant, independent sources at this time for independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Septagram (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Society for Creative Anachronism. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 13 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. No reason given to keep the article. Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saadia Afzaal (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)

doesn't meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why ? --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Doesn't pass GNG, it could go either way on NJOURNALIST, but more refs are needed. This is one of those "it could be notable with some more work, but the odds are probably that it isn't and it isn't as it's written now." South Nashua (talk) 02:22, 16 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhruddin Sajid (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)

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability as a poet. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we need expert opinion on this one, but as of right now, I'd start from scratch. The only source in the stub can not be translated by a machine. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faqeer Muhammad Soomro (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)

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing on him in Gnews. Nothing about him in Gbooks, from what I can see. Created by an editor who's created a number of Soomro family articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is [5] the same person? I don't know how I would be able to tell. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO. that is different peron. Look at the photograph. --Saqib (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V. We can't locate even a single source. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Hattangdi (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. scope_creep (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom, most mentions in sources are trivial, and all are in the context of InnoVen. WP:NOTINHERITED. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete the only coverage of him (as opposed to his company) is a "40 under 40" style article. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He appears to not be notable enough. The CEO of the whole company, maybe, but he appears to just be a national manager. In case I am wrong, I will assess the article anyway as a part of WikiProject Biography. Firstclass306 (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is the CEO of entire India operations (InnoVen Capital) and the COO of the Group, and makes strategic decisions regarding investments made in leading startups of the country. Tamma07 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Direct news links/press coverage talking about him have not been published but his notability on the basis of the role he plays through his company InnoVen Capital cannot be denied. Tamma07 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So that is no sources then, for a WP:BLP article, where new rules mean sources must be very strong. scope_creep (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - granted that he is a CEO of a large subsidiary in one of the two largest countries on the earth, I'd like to see good sourcing that he even exists. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya A. Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO and possibly WP:FILMMAKER scope_creep (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, I can find no reliable sources about the subject. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TNT too many problems to be salvagable. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:27, 13 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. No reason given to keep the article. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

promotional article with insufficient references DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails WP:BIO for many passing mentions and blogs, but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Writing or stories by the subject may be notable, but there's no good sources about the person. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Malaysian Americans. It may be duly noted that an AfD is not the appropriate venue to seek a merge. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 18:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Islamic Study 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)

Non-notable organisation. This article should be merged into Malaysian Americans. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge some of the content, although it will have to be supported mainly by primary sources: a restrictive Google search reveals only three passing mentions. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:53, 6 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Parris (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)

Of the seven references currently provided in this article, the subject is not mentioned anywhere in references 1 or 2; #3 and #4 are both profiles rather than news articles; #5 is a link to a publisher's website; #6 is a primary source; and #7 is a personal blog without an editorial staff or oversight. There is lots of evidence that this person exists, but there does not appear to be enough evidence to substantiate a notability claim. Article was created by an SPA. KDS4444 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to agree that there's limited evidence of notability. The main item would be the author's book, Wade of Aquitaine, except it was self-published 9 years ago, and despite claims of initially being highly ranked on the Kindle, only has 22 reviews at this date. If you take away the book, it's even harder to demonstrate Mr. Parris' notability. I'm putting a delete vote on the book article as well. Timtempleton (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a biography of Ben Parris, which can be found at this link--(one of the references): http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Ben_Parris He is notable, not only for his novel, but he has won national awards. SFrancis1608 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please provide a link to any reference that mentions a national award and Mr. Parris' name. The article as it stands only asserts this, but provides no evidence of it being true. KDS4444 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do when the online source that the article relied upon for years is no longer maintained? There must be many articles for which references aren't maintained--does this mean that they are no longer notable? I can provide you with a greatly reduced version of a bit of the information, about the Unisys Prize for Online Science Education 2002: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=edtech&month=0204&week=a&msg=pLLX/s639z6aldCAVzBdgg&user=&pw= but the reference wasn't maintained. SFrancis1608 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Director of the "Long Island Museum of Science & Technology" certainly sounds like a claim to notability, except I can't fina bluselink. The place doee have a webpage [6] but no gNews hits [7], and to have been subsumed by or merged into the Cradle of Aviation Museum. Taking a fresh tack, I ran a Proqeust news archive search on "Ben Parris" Bingo! He and his museum were notable, Newsday: "LI Science Museum's Parris Becomes a Space Ambassador" Jackson, Tommi, 07 Oct 2002: p. A34. [8]' "COOL2KNOW," Washington Post; BY CARYN EVE MURRAY. Newsday, 13 Feb 2008: B.3. , [9]. More sources found. There's enough here to keep, article needs a good editing/editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per E.M.Gregory's excellent research. bd2412 T 01:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete article is on him as a self-published author. I'd probably support keeping a heavily edited version of the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:30, 13 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entangling Love in Shanghai (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 citation India1277 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article needs citations, but the topic is definitely notable. The TV drama has been broadcast nationally in China. -Zanhe (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the page history we can see the nominator spent less than a minute to review the article, do WP:BEFORE and finish the AFD request. Very efficient. Timmyshin (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of Bielsko-Biała.  Sandstein  09:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bielsko municipal election, 1936 (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 local election. PROD was declined with the following reasoning: "Elections in German-speaking parts of Poland during the 1930s are of more historical interest than typical local elections, so this has plausible potential utility". No explanation on the Talk page as to why they are of greater historical interest.

The only source on the page is in German, and is a book with no preview. While this is perfectly within policy it is not helpful for the average enwiki editor in terms of determining notability. Can't find any other books mentioning these elections as being abnormally significant. Admittedly though I don't read German so there could be German sources I'm missing. Finally, I am not opposed to merging; if there were a general article about similar elections I would merge and redirect, but I don't even see any other similar local election articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm the admin who declined the PROD request on this. In response to "No explanation on the Talk page as to why [elections in German-speaking Poland in the 1930s] are of greater historical interest", I would have thought that would go without saying, but if you're really not aware of the background: "the rights of German-speakers in Eastern Europe" was the proximate cause of the Second World War, and these immediately pre-war election results are the closest thing we have to a survey of what level of support Naziism had in the areas Hitler claimed to be liberating. (In this particular instance, while support for pro-German parties outnumbered that for the pro-Poland bloc, the Young German Party—aka the Nazis—didn't have majority support in the German community.) I'm not saying these elections necessarily each need their own page, but the WP:PROD process is for uncontroversial deletions which, given the potential utility of this information, clearly isn't the case here. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Soman: Your thoughts as author? The article itself doesn't provide any context about the election. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What level of local government was Bielsko municipality? Based on other countries, if this was a second tier level of government, the article would almost certainly be deemed worth keeping. Number 57 21:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Notability isn't really the question when it comes to elections. I would be happy if the material could be merged into a larger article on the 1936 municipal elections, but I'd advice against deletion considering that the factoid given here can be difficult to recreate later. --Soman (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the information, I just don't know that each individual election from the period is independently notable. If there had been an article to merge to, I would've done that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to History of Bielsko-Biała. Local municipal elections that likely fail GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to either a more general Polish municipal elections article or to History of Bielsko-Biała. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:05, 15 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 Information management. Consensus is that this could be merged somewhere else, but there's no clear agreement where to and seemingly no great enthusiasm for doing it. This redirect is an interim solution.  Sandstein  10:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data gathering and representation techniques (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 context for this at all, which means it contains pretty much no useful information. This is made worse by the completely mangled English ("The probability distribution techniques are utilized to portray that shapes compatible with the information created amid a quantitative risk analysis" - what?). I don't see that any of this article is useful. Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I declined a Prod request on this and a number of similar articles that cited the rough English, as I did not believe it to be totally incomprehensible. But most of these articles don't have enough content to make them worth keeping. Additionally most lack sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish a credible claim to encyclopedic notability. It might be worth an attempt to combine some of the others into a single AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, tentatively, to some general project management article ...see my comment, next. --doncram 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article has too general a title. It is apparently an attempt to cover the topic of data gathering and representation FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT, but it doesn't say so in the title and further it fails to go into anything project-management related (perhaps where data is about tasks and sequencing matters and so on, as needed for PERT/CPM modeling). It reminds me that I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (2nd nomination), where "Keep" was the decision taken, and correctly so. It was agreed that it is okay/good to cover, within Wikipedia, the body of knowledge about project management that has been developed. With caveat: as long as it is written and organized encyclopedically, and that includes using article titles that make sense. It could be reasonable to have an article like this split out of bigger articles, but I don't currently see where this fits in, and since it has little real content I would be inclined to merge it back to wherever it does fit in. If there is a whole series of articles that have been split out unnecessarily, or set up independently, could we discuss that here, now? Rather than encouraging a slew of AFDs on them, I bet they could be addressed by editing, perhaps involving some merger proposals. And there could be some overall organizing discussion at some central location, perhaps Talk:Project management? I don't see a WikiProject specifically focused on this topic area (it seems to fall within WikiProject Business, WikiProject Computing / Software, WikiProject Engineering, and WikiProject Systems. AFDs would be unnecessarily adversarial, I think. Ad Orientem, could you comment more please? --doncram 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps redirect to Information management, as it seems to be the same thing as Project Information Management? Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:16, 4 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. SOFTDELETE per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Roy (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)

Singer and actress who seems to be notable at first glance, but it isn't clear that she actually meets any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She does meet the guidelines. Is currently still a working actor in numerous notable TV shows with significant roles. You can see her on the TV show Underground currently airing now as well as upcoming on a very significant role on NBC's The Night Shift. Previous to this she has also appeared in NBC's The Michael J Fox Show, ABC's Black Box, MTV's Mary+Jane as guest starring roles and Switched at Birth as a recurring role. The page needs updating which will be done in the coming weeks. Please take this off the Articles for deletion. A2b3sing (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — A2b3sing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Appearances and one-off roles aren't "significant". Not all recurring roles are significant either. Please specify exactly what criterion in WP:NACTOR this person meets, and why. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pulse (group). Power~enwiki (talk) 19:33, 13 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 no consensus. No further discussion despite three relists (a !vote without explanation does not count as discussion). The assumption of G5 eligibility is not sufficient grounds for deletion and other reasons for deletion were not mentioned either by the nominator or the sole delete-!vote. SoWhy 10:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Page previously deleted as unambiguous promotion. Was recreated by a sockpuppet, which escaped notice for a while and has had enough edits by unrelated users to warrant a discussion. The recreated version is substantially similar to the deleted version, though not identical. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:G5. With the exception of a sole IP edit (quite possibly block evasion itself) all other edits to the page have been typo fixes, dab fixes, template additions and other minor edits. There's nothing that wasn't created by the sockpuppet that's worth keeping. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix the promotion as necessary, as we could use more coverage of Trinidadian artists. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 13 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.