< 19 May	21 May >

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. References found by E.M.Gregory seem to clinch it..Mojo Hand (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Birbraer[edit]

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

I am not finding the necessary coverage to meet WP:GNG for this hockey player, maybe there are sources for him in Israeli media? Definitely fails WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Holding vote at the moment, but there is some coverage - mainly of the fringe coverage sort ("Israel has hockey players?!" (not a big sport locally, weather isn't too conductive...)). e.g. - [1] - but it is fairly sparse.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I was asking since I could not find any. Unfortunately we are going to need more than that one source as it only has one paragraph about him being drafted and borders on WP:ROUTINE coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on what I can tell he plays in the English Premier Ice Hockey League which is the top tier league in England, which means he meets #1 in WP:NHOCKEY. - Galatz ^Talk 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Number 1: please read NHOCKEY again. Nowhere does it say "top tier league in a country/nation"; it says "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league" period. If you read the line directly above that (the very first line in NHOCKEY); For lists of the leagues considered to satisfy each of the criteria below, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. All other leagues do not meet the specified criteria. The EPIHL is not among them for assumed notability. (It is based on research into players in listed leagues on the likelihood that they would meet GNG per the listed criteria. It does not mean that players that participate in those leagues automatically fail, just that playing in them is not an automatic assumed notability.)

Number 2:The EPIHL is arguably not even the top level team in the UK, that could likely be the EIHL.

However, it does not matter because regular players in these leagues have not been proven to gain significant independent coverage to meet GNG by playing in said leagues. Please provide non-routine sources to back his notability. Yosemiter (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Would you care to respond to my reply? Yosemiter (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep clearly fails NHOCKEY, however the Globe and Mail ran a story about him and Antropov here, and I don't know how good this source is. Also discussed in this book on coaching.18abruce (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced him to profiles/feature stories in 5 newspapers Toronto Star, National Post, The Forward, South Wales Echo and Globe and Mail, from each of which bio is now sourced and from which it could be expanded. Added coverage of playing career. and I didn't even get to bottom of first page of the news archive search. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read most of those sources (behind a paywall?), but based on the titles (since they mention him by name) and the source they come from, I would be fine with removing my nomination. Yosemiter (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I used Proquest. Articles are as headlines imply.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 25 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Hockey Centre[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG by only having primary or links to the very low-level unsanctioned junior hockey teams (of which players in the GMHL do not meet WP:NHOCKEY) that particapte in this training camp. The entire comes off as WP:PROMOTIONAL and is nowhere near the standards for WP:NEVENT. Yosemiter (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer a number of responses.:

I agree that the article reads like promotion; that could be remedied though.
On the other hand, its authors do not seem to have sought to mislead readers about the leagues for which they have trained players.
I don't know anything about the rankings of the various leagues. I expect that User:Yosemiter knows what he's talking about.
Actually my main concern is the uneven application of rules for notability across wikipedia. I notice for instance that some of the world's universities are included in wikipedia in spite of their very poor world rankings yet ice hockey articles must refer to teams and players that meet — what appear to me to be — fairly high standards. Is this justifiable? SewerCat (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note my very first link, it first and foremost appears to fail WP:GNG. In the end, it doesn't matter what its rank is, but that it was actually covered by non-primary sources (ie newspapers, hockey journals, independently published reports, etc.). The universities you mention were actually ranked, therefore, had some outside coverage. This event does not.

My comment about the low-level is more directed at the reliability of the source as they tend to be very biased for marketing purposes (promotional).

(If you are curious about players and inherent notability by playing in a league, the list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. However, almost no junior level players are inherently notable. On the hierarchy of Canadian junior ice hockey, the GMHL, which calls itself "Junior A", is more equivalent to Junior B/C in playing ability but has more imports as it is unsanctioned.) Yosemiter (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: SewerCat's concerns are, alas, beside the point. The bottom line is that this camp fails the GNG going away, and that it wouldn't remotely qualify under a business-related guideline like WP:CORP. Ravenswing 06:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fail WP:GNG Ellen DeGenerate (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as above. When one of the first search results is a Wikipedia mirror, I think it quite clearly is not notable enough for inclusion. Keira 1996 08:23, 28 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) 22:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Marto[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw nothing that suggested this person met notability criteria. Regrets, Bill McKenna (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor league player Ellen DeGenerate (talk) 13:02, 27 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scylacorhinus[edit]

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

Stub-level article since 2009; based on a Google search it appears this refers to a single fossil described in 1915. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have a similar case for deletion:

The first and last ones of this list have an image at Commons and thus should have an article too. I agree the amazing production in stubs by colleague Abyssal need expansions and for the main RfD it may be too old (1915) and too little described for an own article, but then expanding these stubs would be the way forward, just deleting them would be backward. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All genera are notable and get there own articles regardless how many specimens have been referred to the genus. Abyssal (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #1 - no valid rationale provided for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Every genus deserves its article. --Snek01 (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree with "speedy keep; every genus is notable". This genus appears to have only been described in one book, over 100 years ago, as a result of a single extinct specimen. The bulk delete may be unreasonable though, some of the other cases may be different. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 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 deleted per followup comments. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DZHH[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unbelievably, despite the previous AFD having closed just three days ago, I can't speedy this as a recreation of deleted content as it's not about the same radio station -- as soon as the original article was deleted, an editor with the username "DZHH" (note potential WP:COI) swooped back in within the last 24 hours to create a similarly unsourced and unverifiable article about a different station that's purported to currently possess the same callsign as the defunct one. As always, however, per WP:NMEDIA radio stations do not get an automatic presumption of notability just because they're asserted to pass the criteria -- the notability criteria can be and sometimes are falsely claimed for stations that don't actually meet them in reality, so the base criterion that a radio station has to meet to qualify for an article is that the claims of a broadcast license and some original programming are properly verified in reliable sources. This may, in fact, need to be WP:SALTed, as even before the defunct military station was actually deleted there was already a pattern of IP editors trying to hijack its article to be about this purported new station instead -- but without valid sources to properly support that it actually satisfies the notability criteria, it still isn't eligible for one. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no references provided for the new creation (and bomboradyo.com doesn't mention it), possible hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:G5. The creator has already been indeffed as a sock of an LTA. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101 and Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Bertrand101 Meters (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I didn't know all the background information about this editor — I knew we had a problem with Philippine radio hoaxes, but had no knowledge of this specific user. On that basis I'm going to withdraw this and go straight to speedy with a dose of WP:SALT. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hahvahd Tour[edit]

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

This article lacks notability, lacks any significant content, and appears to be promotional. Tekhnofiend (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment page was never transcluded to AFD. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a summer project by two Harvard students in 2006 that was immediately shut down. The Chinese tour group mentioned may not be related, and is definitely promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: How in the merry hell did this completely promotional sub-stub of a long forgotten on-campus flap, the sole Wikipedia activity of a SPA, survive ten years? Certainly NN, and I don't see an assertion of notability here. Ravenswing 01:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Only coverage is local campus press and no WP:RS located on searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preti Flaherty[edit]

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

When I read this article, I really came out with two things. One was that this company hasn't really done anything notable, and also that this is clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wall4009 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this page was never properly transcluded at AFD. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has multiple red flags, including being an orphan with scads of bad links created by possible COI SPA (SamPF69). More importantly, however, fails WP:CORPDEPTH as all offered sources and all available search results are to WP:ROUTINE coverage. Also does not qualify under Bearian's usually reliable notability standards for attorneys but seems to be an ordinary regional law firm gong about ordinary legal business. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this law firm badly fails my standards. Thanks for the kudos, Eggishorn, you were correct. This is just a regional law firm, and at around 100 lawyers, is not even that big nowadays, and at less than 100 years old, not that old a "shoe". I've heard of Nyhan, one of their partners, but not a single one of their attorneys have ever held a leadership position in the ABA, from what I can tell. Severin Beliveau, a partner, is not notable as a lawyer per se, but rather as a state legislator. Please ping me if anyone finds anything else. To the closing admin: the Afd tag seems not to be on the article; perhaps it was not transcluded (per Primefac). Bearian (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, in an odd twist, it actually was tagged, but the notice was inside a multiple issues tag. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 24 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) f e minist 02:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Orgasm Day[edit]

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

I don't believe that "National Orgasm Day" is a widespread enough observance to warrant a Wikipedia article. If it were a common or popular observance, why is there only one source to verify a one-liner article? Hymnodist.2004 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment page was never transcluded at AFD. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a non-article and should be removed. -Sb2001 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Terrible stub but it seems there is a significant Google footprint for this day and event. Carrite (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there does seem to be enough Gnews coverage -- and not all from the same year. Keep per GNG. Even this placerholder-ish stub is better than nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised to be saying this as this sub-stub has nearly no useful information but: There is significant coverage in independent WP:RS and so it passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. There is little information on the page. However, there is a *lot* of articles discussing it from standard RS. I've added a number of them to the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:40, 25 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) 22:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Stapleton[edit]

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

Does this subject really meet WP:GNG (and other notability guidelines)? (t) Josve05a (c) 20:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jason Stapleton Program. --(t) Josve05a (c) 20:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is currently very poor. No other sourcing suggests Stapleton has been the subject of multiple, independent, in-depth articles. AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see anything to indicate he meets the notability criteria, neither in the article nor in a News search: he looks like just another podcaster with a self-improvement program to push. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources on the page is lousy. I ran a gNews search,[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape tree all notable contemporary political commentators will get lots ghits in such a search. Stapleton got a handful of ghits on Libertarian websites such as The Libertarian Republican, The Liberty Conservative, and Being Libertarian. Plus a press release [2]. He does seem to have followers; doesn't have any sources to support notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. A zillion links to Youtube is no different than no refs at all. And that's just about all he's got. South Nashua (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every single one of the 18 citations and links are by him, not about him, thus it fails both WP:BLP and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 24 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 deleted as copyright violation. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graem Beddoes[edit]

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

Alexf505 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of investigating this due to the nominator's failure to provide an actual deletion rationale, I found that the entire article was a straight copy-paste of the biographical sketch at the top of the subject's IMDb page. Accordingly, I've speedied this as a copyvio. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 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 Keep per Criterion #1. (non-admin closure) VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Wilcox[edit]

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

Notability Alexf505 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep the proposer gives no grounds for lack of notability. The article provides sources which discuss the subject per WP:MUSICBIO#1, #4, #11.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saima Azhar[edit]

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

no significant roles in multiple notable films.. doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. Saqib (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do you mean the Saima Azhar who has been called one of Pakistan's sizzling six by Express Tribune,^[3] and whose life has been dissected by media agencies like Dawn and others?^[4][5] She seems to qualify on GNG by some distance and BASIC surely. Lourdes 17:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She might has made into few press articles, but she doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. --Saqib (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER is a subject-specific notability guideline. If you see the heading of WP:BIO, it mentions "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." So it perhaps might not matter if she doesn't meet ENTERTAINER (I've not checked if she does or not). If she qualifies on BASIC, her article may be kept. Please don't hesitate to ask me for any assistance in understanding our notability guidelines. Thanks. Lourdes 18:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Saima Azhar, one of Pakistan's sizzling six meets Wikipedia's notability requirements! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't believe "sizzling six" is a commonly-used term, it's merely a newspaper headline. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Lourdes. Her film debut made news (see Pakistan Today & The News). Also see: Daily Pakistan & FHM Pakistan. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 07:34, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed return of traditional blue British passports[edit]

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

This article has been the subject of a discussion in two different places [1] [2] where the consensus appears to be that it be merged into British passport. However the main article does already cover this subject, and this seems superfluous, so the simplest approach may just be to delete it. Shritwod (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom. Unless and until such a proposal becomes more than a tangential offshoot of the Brexit process (and in the short term, I'd submit that that means there needs to be a fair bit of said process actually happening, rather than simply being discussed), the section in the main British passport article seems to do the proposal justice. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious no brainer. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 24 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. The arguments that this is basically only an unsourced plot summary is compelling. Can be recreated with real content and real sources. Sandstein 21:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Gate (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book with no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG --Joshualouie711^talk 17:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Both authors appear to be notable, and there appear to be plenty of reviews: Pub Weekly, Library Cat, Fantasy Literature. Reviewing this, however, it seems like the overall feeling is the series is pretty "meh" and overcomplicated, but bad reviews do not make a book non-notable. I don't see any awards. I note that the other volumes in the series are redlinked and not-yet-linked at all in David Weber bibliography, so it might be appropriate to merge there, or to a separate series article, instead. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears notable, would be okay with merge per above. Artw (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I thought about a merge to the series article, but the series is non-notable, and a merge to David_Weber_bibliography#Collaborations would be just a plot summary merge since there is nothing else here. I do remember enjoying this book and its sequel, and the lack of continuation generated some fan discussions, but I can't find a single review, or anything outside forum discussion. User:Jclemens sadly seems to confuse book blurb with a review. All the links he lists and calls reviews are publisher's book blurbs, and sadly, that's not enough to prove that this book is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article lists no sources and the links offered above are not convincing for notability of this particular work. There's nothing to merge as the article consists of the plot only. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing significant coverage here. Neutrality^talk 17:32, 25 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 Solway Firth Spaceman. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Templeton[edit]

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

While there is a ton of coverage on folks with this name, none seem to be about this particular person. It was a redirect to an article about a photograph which gained some notoriety. This person does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solway Firth Spaceman, Templeton is the man who took the famous photograph.94.197.121.103 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Current article is very promotional. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 09:13, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RaiBlocks[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG. As the article notes, it's yet another cryptocurrency in a very crowded market: 197th by market cap. No significant coverage online in WP: Reliable sources, just chatter on social media. Proposed deletion contested without comment. Uncle Roy (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing to make this pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 05:48, 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 Speedy delete by Widr as A7. (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlickers[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Should be CSD'd, but socks keep removing the tag. reddogsix (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy, even) and block the socks. There is absolutely no coverage in any sources, RS or otherwise. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:14, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varadkar[edit]

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

Varadkar ought to redirect to Leo Varadkar, who is on course to become the next Taoiseach. Per WP:2DABS, a surname page is not needed. --Nevé –selbert 14:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward keep per WP:APONOTE. 2DABS doesn't apply as this is an anthroponymy page, not a dab. – Uanfala (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty obvious. There's no primary topic. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there definitely is a case for the Irish politician being the primary topic for "Varadkar": last year his article received 15x more pageviews than the actress [6] [7]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @Uanfala: Would it be wiser if I closed this discussion, and open a move discussion instead? Thanks for clarifying 2DABS, which had me confused.--Nevé –selbert 07:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Neve-selbert, given that there have been no support !votes so far, it'll be alright if you withdraw your nomination, though some would consider it better if after you've withdrawn it you let an uninvolved editor formally close it. One tip: when you start the RM, it's good to be explicit that you're also proposing for Varadkar to become a redirect to Leo Varadkar. – Uanfala (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  OK thanks.--Nevé –selbert 14:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn.--Nevé –selbert 14:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Issues with the tone of the article should be dealt with through editing and discussion on the article talk page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Edge[edit]

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

unremarkable YouTube personality Mjbmr (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see my comment at another AfD started by this user. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- coverage is either local or tabloid-like & unsuitable for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If an editor has any concerns regarding the behavior of AfD participants, then please report it on the appropriate noticeboards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jamesjpk (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: for two above votes no reasons given, not qualified. Mjbmr (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Comment once again, note details on my user page. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Roady. Mjbmr (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, notable Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While much is local, there is a lot of local, plus there are other sources outside his backyard. This one passes the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any chance of a consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 14:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ After looking further, I've changed my mind. There's no reason the article needs to be deleted (it likely passes WP:GNG), but there's also no good reason to keep it. Being a "Youtube celebrity" means his entire public profile is self-promotional in nature, and I don't see any way to repair this article to get around that. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If he passes WP:GNG, we don't discriminate because his "public profile is self-promotional". The same could be said of many notable, and much more notable persons. Most public figures are first and foremost into promoting their own image, be it Beyonce or Neil deGrasse Tyson. Go to their websites, they self-promotional. This is smaller scale, but the same effect, so the question is whether or not you pass WP:GNG and nothing else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If somebody can improve the article quality, I might support keeping the article. The original author is the person who created the AfD and clearly won't repair the article going forward. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That isn't the standard for keeping or deleting an article, GNG is. See WP:PROBLEM, under "arguments to avoid at AFD". Most articles are improved by persons other than the original creator, and there is no deadline. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - He meets "being the subject of at least two articles in legitimate media sources", but it's almost impossible to say whether any specific article is promotional or a "human interest story" in nature. I dislike every possible option for this article at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I really do understand Power~enwiki. Often, I have to hold my nose when doing the proper thing but whether I'm acting as editor or admin, it is important to put my personal feelings aside and judge each situation fairly using the same criteria I would if I loved the content. This isn't always easy, but it is the goal for the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG met. Pretty straightforward. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again I state my Keep vote, as there are many good references in the article, and outside of it. Some work needs to be done on the article, but this article has a ton of WP:Potential. Jamesjpk (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate iVote struck. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a duplicate because as Mjbmr states, "NOTE: for two above votes [my vote was in the two above] no reasons given, not qualified." I relisted my vote, to be qualified, and to restate my vote.

Keep While many references are local, if the argument to delete is his level of notability be aware that his fan base is reasonably international.YangTegap (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)YangTegap[reply]
Keep per Dennis Brown; it's perhaps an unfortunate reflection upon what can be conseidered newsworthy today, but the coverage allows him to pass WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:05, 31 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. Disagreement exists mainly about whether the sourcing is sufficient to prove notability with roughly equal number of editors arguing for and against it. Since "significant coverage" is not a clear standard and no clear agreement exists whether the currently available coverage is significant, no consensus exists at this point. Regards So Why 11:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Hales[edit]

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

unremarkable actress Mjbmr (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see my comment at another AfD started by this user. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NACTOR & sig RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If an editor has any concerns regarding the behavior of AfD participants, then please report it on the appropriate noticeboards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: for above vote no reasons given, not qualified. Mjbmr (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

See my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Roady. Mjbmr (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a reasonable number of significant roles . DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of her films are indie/student films and she was not a lead/main character in the films, except maybe Unicorn City (the one about the LARPing). Extinct (2017 TV series) sounds promising. She plays a main character there and it's BYUtv's second scripted television series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any chance of a consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 14:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. No profiles, little media coverage beyond mentions in a handful of articles about the minor, indy movies she has appeared in, productions notable for their lack of notability. The sole source for the bio section is PRIMARY, apparently because there has been no media coverage of her career. At least, none that I can find although she has a unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Women of Upstate New York magazine article [8] that covers her career. So that's promising, but yeah, only two lead roles in two projects, only the latter of the projects is Wikipedia-notable. If someone really wants her article to stay around, they need to work on it in a draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a person currently active in the entertainment industry. It may be WP:TOOSOON because the show Extinct doesn't appear to be on the air yet, but the benefit of the doubt should be to keep the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:15, 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 delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brundavan Gardens[edit]

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

Not notable. No mention on internet. An ordinary park in city. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a run of the mill playground, just one of thousands around the world. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for a WP article. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:38, 29 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smriti Pokharel[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has not won any notable award or produced any notable work. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:14, 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 delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Dietrich[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to be anything in reliable sources: neither of the ones in the article are reliable. St Anselm (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:15, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palaniappan Ramanathan Chettiar[edit]

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

No evidence this passes WP:BIO. Only cited source is the person's own website. Kaldari (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a BEFORE search appears to have no coverage at all. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-As per KGirlTrucker81 the person in question fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FITINDIA 11:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Similar article instances have previously been submitted by User:Drpalan, including rejected AfC. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the subject can be verified as a holder of the Malay_styles_and_titles#Tan_Sri title, that may go towards indicating some notability - although the Wikipedia page on the award indicates that it can be held by up to 250 living people at any time. AllyD (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (1) There is virtually no coverage of him outside of a couple of government websites. (2) The Tan Sri appears to be similar to an OBE, which confirms but does not confer notability. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 27 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) 22:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Storm[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unremarkable adult actress; no significant achievements & GNG fail. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:20, 27 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. I sympathize with the views to wait a moment to see if additional coverage is released that would establish notability for the subject. However, there is agreement here that there is insufficient coverage available in reliable sources at this time. If there is additional coverage in the future, the notability of the subject may be reconsidered. If the page creator would like, and if no one objects, I would be happy to move this into their userspace or the draft space for them to work on in the meantime as we wait for additional sources. Mz7 (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Bro![edit]

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

Not notable. Doug and Brad are the only notable people involved in this, and "I Hate Critics" is not a reliable source. The only passable source is the Dove Foundation review, but I was unable to find any other reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I've witnessed this before, and I'm really too tired and disillusioned to start a fight over this again. All I'll say is these guidelines are basically designed to screw over independent art. Go ahead, we wouldn't wanna take valuable space from articles on every single obscure side character in a Disney-owned franchise in existence... -- Imladros (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It really does seem to have just come out. One option might be to "userfy" it and Imladros can simply wait to see if we get a few reviews in bona fide reliable sources. It wouldn't take much. I've seen plenty of notable crowd-sourced indie projects. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now. Honestly, 1 month of release for an indie project like this... This feels about right. You're right, TPH, that the Dove Foundation seems to be the most notable review. However, unlike cinematic releases, I don't expect there to be a huge post-release surge which quickly trickles off. Give it a few months and it will likely have a few more independent RS reviews. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable, secondary sources really do need to take notice of a film before it can have a page. I searched, and none have.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, apparently not noteworthy indie film. No reliable, secondary sources.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable film. If it is indeed notable in a few months, the article can be taken to DRV. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Somewhat notable. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. –Matthew - (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewHoobin: What is it being built with, besides fansites and only one review? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's got two reviews and an IMDb page, so that's at least something to start with. Additional sources may make themselves known as time passes. –Matthew - (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewHoobin: One of the reviews is from an obviously self-published source and thus not reliable. IMDb itself is not a reliable source since it's user submitted. There is no reason to play "wait and see" with an article that is not notable in its current state. If it becomes notable later, then the page can always be undeleted, but as of right now it doesn't seem to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get skeptical when I see a film page with no reviews in WP:RS media. I get skeptical when I don't see blue-linked people involved in making the film. In this case, only two guys in the infobox are bluelinked, sort of. Writer Brad Jones is actually linked to a webcast called The Cinema Snob. Only one actor in the film has a page Doug Walker (actor); it appeared a few weeks before the film was released. I have tagged both Brad Jones and Doug Walker for notability. I am not seeing WP:RS secondary coverage for either of them , or for this film.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just watched the trailer. It's funny. But still has to have sources that support notability or it can't have a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump speech to joint session of Congress, February 2017[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. It was one speech, and while it was his "first" there is zero lasting impact. There was zero follow-up past the standard "let's talk about this for a few days" news cycle. Is there really any information in here that is so vital it has to be on its own page? When Trump gives a speech, there are fact-checkers. When any president gives a speech, there are responses from the opposition party. In other words, there is nothing special about this particular speech, and so there's no reason to have an article on it.

In the media age that we live in, there should be zero question that this meets WP:GNG. However, that's not what I'm arguing, so please save your breath clamouring that GNG is met and so it must be kept. Primefac (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Wikisource. Despite the article title, this should be considered a State of the Union speech. Recent ones have articles, many older ones of similar notability are only at Wikisource. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SOTU equivalent; a lot of SOTU's and first presidential joint sessions have their impact fade out within the week, but that doesn't mean an automatic deletion. We're an encyclopedia of permanence, not the 24-hour news cycle removing topics because we're bored with them. Nate • (chatter) 00:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we indeed are an encyclopedia of permanence, and I don't see there's a lasting significance to this speech. Of course what the president says gets some news buzz, but not every speech, not every tweet that's widely reported on is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with Primefac and Huon here, I feel they make the case quite eloquently.. This speech is clearly not notable in and of itself, and therefore should not have it's own article. There's perhaps a little material here for the main Trump article, but not much. Waggie (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Primefac. The speech was noteworthy for being the first speech he gave to the joint session but was not so noteworthy as to have any content worth including in this article which has a "Reception" section and a "Democratic responses" section but practically no information on what was said. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and section-redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. bd2412 T 14:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per the nominator's rationale. Everything Trump says or writes is subjected to extensive fact-checking and Democratic heckling, and since these responses comprise nearly the entire article's content, there's no evidence of significance or lasting impact here. The fact that commentary "fade[d] out within the week" strengthens the WP:NOTNEWS, I would think. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting significance. Every utterance of this man does not deserve a whole article. Merge anything useful to the already ridiculously in-depth First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency and Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q1. AusLondonder (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NOTNEWS. With 3 months hindsight, it is clear that this was one of a series of the Trump-related things that have had their own news cycle without having lasting significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speech is at [9], Template:State_of_the_Union and Template:Donald_Trump could be updated to point to that. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was Trump's first presidential address to Congress, on par with a SOTU address. The speech was notable for its departure from the dark themes of the inauguration address, for Trump generally sticking to the teleprompter (never saying "fake news"), and for the policy positions that were put forth. This is the speech where Democratic Congresswomen wore white to the speech in a nod to the suffrage movement. This is the speech where Trump called for an end to "trivial fights", even as his social media nemesis Rosie O'Donnell was outside leading a protest. This is also the speech where Trump singled out Carryn Owens, the widow of the SEAL who was killed in Yemen, and Megan Crowley, whose father found a cure for Pompe disease. While the speech was criticized for its claims, that is not a reason to delete. Many news stories praised the speech, saying that it was the most presidential that Trump has ever sounded or that it was "the best speech of his political career".

I find it puzzling that a nominator would acknowledge that an article meets WP:GNG, our most basic gauge of notability, and then ask that we ignore it. The arguments presented for deletion seem to rely on an overly narrow interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS#2, ignoring that this speech easily meets WP:EVENTCRITERIA. The coverage is both significant and in-depth. The speech was widely covered in diverse sources, receiving international coverage (Guardian) and thus meeting GEOSCOPE. The speech has also received continued coverage in the past couple of months, as demonstrated by the sources that continue to make reference to it (Forbes, The New York Review of Books, Scientific American). gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it puzzling that a nominator would acknowledge that an article meets WP:GNG, our most basic gauge of notability, and then ask that we ignore it. Not puzzling at all; notability is just one criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, as discussed extensively at WP:N. Even obviously notable topics must still fall inside our scope, and you'll note that while GNG is a guideline, WP:NOT is policy. It is entirely possible for a topic to handily meet GNG but still fail NOTNEWS, which I believe is the nominator's contention regarding this particular article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, clearly. Even nominator admits that. It's equivalent to a State of the Union, which are notable. What argument is for deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Smartyllama (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING? Did you even read the nomination? Primefac (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyking, what are your thoughts on WP:NOTNEWS as it relates to this article? Primefac (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think this article resembles the "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" referenced by NOTNEWS. Everyking (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I recommend that contributors focus on why the article should or should not be deleted even though it meets WP:GNG; that this is the case is admitted in the nomination and therefore merely asserting (or denying) notability is not an useful argument to make here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events (WP:NOTNEWS point 2). WIth this subject, it received lots of publicity at the time of the address, as was to be expected. But Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, as there is no lasting coverage. I can find no articles, 3 months on, focusing on this speech or anything hinting at how this speech has shaped Trump's presidency. As such, it fails WP:NOTNEWS, and I can't see any particular reason why this would be a special case. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 09:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, not noteworthy WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING - Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTNEWS excludes the vast majority of news from Wikipedia because it's simply not encyclopedic, routine news, filler stories, public interest stories, etc. This hardly applies to the first major speech of an American president, and one that gets wide news coverage and thorough analysis from academics. As for the claims that there has been nothing about the speech since the few days after it happened, they only appear true if you don't follow American politics too closely. The speech was repeatedly mentioned in sources summing up Trump's first 100 days at the end of April, many of which took different takes on it from noting that it was a major Trump speech which did not mention conservatism at all , to how the momentum for the well-received speech was derailed by Sessions's dealings with the Russians, to it being ranked as the single best moment in Trump's first 100 days, to descriptions of the legislative agenda it envisioned. It came up again for his foreign trip this week in the context of whether or not he would use "radical Islamic terrorism" in his speech on Islam in Saudi Arabia. [10], [11] If consensus is not to keep, it should be, merged to First_100_days_of_Donald_Trump's_presidency#Speech_to_joint_session_of_Congress, where it would fit in appropriately at that section, which has never been long because this article has existed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Wikisource I agree with Primefac and Huon, this speech was of transient significance and as such fails WP:LASTING. --Varavour (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- run-of-the-mill speech; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Speech received unusually positive reception, and is thus more than mere WP:MILL. Also, I honestly think we should have more articles on political speeches. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 27 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) 22:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher M. Simon[edit]

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

I declined the speedy request by DGG for two reasons: a) Working on high-profile cases for notable people indicates significance enough to pass A7 and b) no admin wanted to handle this request for more than 24 hours (while the rest of CAT:SD was cleaned up), so I think it's not a clear-cut enough case for speedy deletion.

Researching this subject however yields no reliably sourced coverage apart from one or two passing mentions. The most I could find is a footnote in a book with some biographical information, noting that he is a descendant of George Washington. But nothing substantial about his work or anything, both with and without the middle initial, can be found, so he fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. So Why 07:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: Quick query to DGG for clarity: Why did you not speedy delete the article yourself? (I note that this article was deleted on A7 and G11 by Just Chilling in January this year. ) 2. Quick query to SoWhy: You're a practicing lawyer. Would you consider archiving this Afd and allowing some other administrator to take a look at DGG's CSD? (Please ignore this query liberally if it sounds silly). Thanks. Lourdes 12:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lourdes: I think DGG (correctly) tagged it instead of deleting to ensure that two people review the article's eligibility. As for the other point, I never thought anyone having a certain job could be considered biased when it comes to others with the same job (I'd happily delete an article about myself for example) but I understand your point. As I said, I mainly declined the speedy because it was tagged yesterday and I noticed it in CAT:CSD for so long despite multiple admins patrolling that category during that time. This lead me to assume that all of them thought it better to let someone else decide. Thus I thought AFD would be the best way to handle it. That said, if another admin believes this clearly meets A7 or G11, I'll be willing to let them delete this page without any hard feelings. I don't think we should archive the AfD though. There is no prohibition against speedy deleting an article while it's listed at AfD but if another admin declines it as well, we would have to start anew. Regards So Why 13:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - SoWhy thanks. That's absolutely okay with me. Thanks again for the quick reply. Lourdes 13:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, per nom. Haven't been able to find relevant sources confirming that the subject meets GNG/BIO. Lourdes 13:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Analysing a couple of cases on Fox News does not stand up the claim "gained national recognition as a legal analyst". National recognition happens when the analysis is quoted approvingly in other publications. FWIW these appearances were not included in the version that I deleted. However, whilst I agree that an A7 deletion is probably not appropriate a G11 deletion still would be. However, since we are here at AfD it is sensible to let it run its course and then unimproved recreations can be deleted as G4. Just Chilling (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I listed both A7 and G11 as reasons, but the nom gave only a reason for not using A7. But G11 is usually a little subjective. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 requires the text (not the intent) to be exclusively (non-fixable) promotional. This was not the case, so I didn't mention it here. I understand that some editors assume that any A7-article was created with the intent to promote and thus fits G11 as well but that's not what that criterion says. The text of the article - the lack of notability notwithstanding - was pretty NPOV, clearly not beyond salvation by stubifying if the subject was notable, so G11 didn't apply. Regards So Why 15:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are Youtube clips of him appearing a few times as a pundit on Fox; he played no legal role in these cases. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per my usual standards for lawyers. He was not on law review/journal, nor a law clerk, nor argued any major appellate cases, nor served in any bar leadership position, nor did anything else that might make him anything more notable than another lawyer. An argument could be made that he's an expert on tort law. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 24 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 WP:G4 by User:Bbb23. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Bisht[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly promotional article which lacks sourced about the subject itself. Article is removed twice already and there is a related sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aditya n06 (in fact, the second in relation to this article). The Banner talk 07:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Non-notable actor fails WP:NACTOR and with only one film that has yet not been theatrically released it is WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 08:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.--Slon02 (talk) 14:37, 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. See WP:BLP1E. Mz7 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Tahir[edit]

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

the subject have been recently quoted in some news articles for one event, but that doesn't make him notable enough to warrant an entry on WP. Wikipedia:Too soon. he is notable only for a single event and no other claims of notability thus falling under WP:BLP1E. Saqib (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls under the not news and one event exclusions to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ernestine Fu[edit]

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

Rather nonnotable "investor" and "author" Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why the nominator has investor and author in quotes since Fu is actually a Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur and she did co-author a book that was reviewed in Change. She has also been subject of RS over time and therefore passes GNG. I would like to note that on the talk page, Hjd555, who is interested in technology, noticed her name on the requested page list here on Wikipedia and decided to create the article for that reason. I'm saying this so there is no charge of this article being written for "promotional" purposes. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly promotional in nature; the lack of conflicts-of-interest does not change that fact. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Article needs work. While I abhor the hiring of young woman (in this case as a college sophomore into a VC - [12]) into male dominated industries in an effort to achieve publicity - unfortunately this approach does generate publicity. There are enough sources on her in a BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate indicia of notability, Also, given the unrelenting sexism faced by women in tech, it's clear she's managed to hang in there better than most and has significant accomplishments. Montanabw^(talk) 05:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I generally don't believe "30 under 30" style articles give notability, and those (or press releases) appear to be almost all the references. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has a number of articles with her name in the title specifically about her, as well as mentioned in about 10 articles all up, so seems notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:58, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data laundering[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG as does not have significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources and will at the moment be nothing more than a dictionary definition. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled by the nominator's statement as Gnews reveals coverage such as this, for one. Which I see was on the article when it was tagged for deletion. That's just one article -- there do seem to be others at Gnews. At the very least a merge to something, I should think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is primarily definitional in nature, and this is not a commonly used term. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — it is a new term but it's been discussed in-depth. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it is not a new term, it is at least several decades old. Nor is it specifically crime-related. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NEO. A gScholar search [13] reveals longstanding use of the term in chemistry, in a manner unrelated to definition on the page article. gNews hits [14] are remarkably sparse, considering the intense media focus on data theft and manipulation. Worse, one of the few hits in that search, [[Sate (magazine)] defines "data laundering" here: " Information-intensive companies promote government power through a form of data laundering. They lobby to encourage the government to collect more personal information, and then argue that the personal data should be released under open government laws." [15]. That's different form the the definition on the page, but Slate supports its definition with an academic article [16]. Summing up I quickly 2 other used for the phrase "data laundering", of which the chemical one dominates searches in academic literature. I did not, however, find the kind of support required by WP:NEO for the use described offered in this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a slang phrase, new definition of an old word, or neologism, which has not yet caught on. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see enough Google book results to suggest that this is a notable concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 25 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 and redirect to Rawalpindi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Foundation School Sagri[edit]

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

A school. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as there are no sources unconnected with the subject. Google search was fruitless. Was deprodded as "sourced".Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable school per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rawalpindi so as to prevent recreation by pre-secondary school students and to direct them to an article about the city they live in. Useful search term considering that they or their parents are likely going to be the only people searching for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs) 06:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Moyo[edit]

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

Self-sourced autobiography, looks pretty non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding nothing to indicate that this Andrew Moyo is notable, whether by WP:JOURNALIST or wider WP:GNG criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD - lack of coverage found for this person to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:JOURNALIST at this time. gongshow talk 05:54, 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 Entrepreneurship. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership in Entrepreneurship[edit]

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

This is an POV essay produced by a class in the education program. I cannot see how to possibly convert it into a NPOV article. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree this is an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, but there is already a proposal to merge. The merger proposal has only support and no opposition. It is better to resolve the merger discussion first, which would effectively remove the essay. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Entrepreneurship article Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:05, 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. Sandstein 21:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Centralized Counselling[edit]

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

Contested prod, still likely unnotable and utterly unclear. Heavily edited by likely sockpuppet of spammy editor user:Digitalravan. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would love for Wikipedia:WikiProject India to have an opinion on this. I don't have an opinion. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though this has received some coverage but it does not qualify for a standalone article. If this is kept then we will have articles for counselling in all the 29 states of India. Sources used here can be used to expand National Eligibility and Entrance Test. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:54, 28 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 Karnataka Premier League. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Brigadiers[edit]

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

Local team with no sources to establish its notability. Greenbörg (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Not notable enough teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Karnataka Premier League. Reasonably search term. Harrias ^talk 08:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be happy with a redirect. Greenbörg (talk) 06:00, 27 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 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Constitution of Ukraine[edit]

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

In reading this article, I don't think that this meets WP:GNG. The external links are rotten and are primarily to different translations of the unveiling event. Possible redirect to Constitution of Ukraine or whichever museum it's housed at (unmentioned in the article). Jip Orlando (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm unable to find any sources. The links in the article are dead. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 28 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 Hong Kong T20 Blitz. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hong Kong T20 Blitz[edit]

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

Local league's season with no notability. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Redirect both to Hong Kong T20 Blitz. Seasons fail WP:GNG, but plausible search term for redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Joseph. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So this league is a local one.It can be accepted to be deleted.Thank You User:Abishe User talk:Abishe

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theopanism[edit]

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

Not really a thing, for an encyclopedia. Citation needed tags have festooned it for a decade, unmet. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. And the first ((cn)) is erroneous, for example, as the source is provided. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew D., might have been unclear here. This is not a real thing. There can be no 'effort' because there is no consistent philosophy. Just a word people have come up with at different times to mean different things. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent philosophy is an oxymoron and so you could make the same complaint about any philosophical concept. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (in some fashion). I make no claim to understand the religious concepts, but base these comments on language. The article appears, in its current state, to be about the word theopanism. That is inappropriate per WP:NOTDIC. If this concept is closely related to another religious topic covered elsewhere, such as Pantheism, then this article's content should be merged wherever most appropriate. If the concept is distinct, then article needs to be cleaned up to make that clear. Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, article needs more work, but having a look at Google Books, this seems to be a legitimate concept in theology - related to both the Jesuits and the Lutherans (it seems). Article needs to be more well rounded. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may be in a very bad current state, and appears to not properly cover the subject - but the subject does exist, as a search on Google Scholar indicates [17]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:47, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emunah La-Paz[edit]

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

Because PROD was removed without any significant changes, we are here. This writer is not noted in any significant reliable coverage. Blogs and passing mentions are all that could be found. Note, the author has an obvious COI with the subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and subject is far from being notable. Meatsgains (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found a few online resources that I think are notable. Creator has a clear COI but I'll try to edit/update the page. User:Rtt11 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page is a mess, but I did find 1 review in an RS: Kirkus on Memoir of a Jaded Woman. I have the feeling she may be TOOSOON. However, if Rtt11 finds more, ping me and I'll !vote. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm continuing to work on the page and am continuing to look for credible sources. It can be difficult because articles switch between her name and her pen name, but I've managed to clean the page up a significant amount. I do believe she is notable enough to have a page (even though the initial publish was a MESS), and I'm willing to continue working on it. User:Rtt11 (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've significantly revised the page since the first deletion notice and could appreciate any help/advice - are the sources reliable enough? Should I get rid of anything? I do think she qualifies enough to be kept (although I'm newer to Wiki) and I think Wikipedia could use more articles on women authors, so it's my hope that I've done enough. Rtt11^talk 21:09, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn H. Greenberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Non notable finance man. Some coverage, but mostly stop tips. scope_creep (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTINHERIT - his father and wife are notable, I see no evidence he is Power~enwiki (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Large notable hedge fund manager. [18] [19] [20].Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emadeldin Elsayed[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Brand new. very minor. scope_creep (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emadeldin Elsayed is a famous documentary filmmaker in Egypt. his last two films were watched millions of times in Egypt, and they were trends on twitter once they were broadcast. for example, his last film, the soldiers was watched more than three and half millions times on Youtube in two different channels, and the All the Arab and Egyptian media was talking about it for one week at least. Actually this film specially is one of the most watched documentaries in the Egyptian media. Also his other film "The Lurker" was watched two millions and half times on Youtube, and was a trend on twitter also. I can provide all the Arabic sources if this will be useful, but I don't know if it is a good idea to add Arabic sources in English wikipedia or not. So he is a well know documentary filmmaker in Egypt and I don't know what is the problem in this article exactly, and why you think it is against the policy. Anyway I removed many points from the article. I hope this edit helps Elfanan30 (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn[edit]

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

STOP. CREATING. A. NEW. ARTICLE. FOR. EVERY. DAILY. TRUMP. HEADLINE.

Seriously, this belongs in Michael T. Flynn or in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not in a new article. — JFG ^talk 01:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so much that every new article is an important article, but that there has been multiple huge news stories that are notable enough for their own articles in quick succession. I wouldn't be against a future merge in theory, but it's definitely notable as an article. We've just had so many large reports in the last couple of days. I wouldn't consider this week normal in the slightest. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But a news story doesn't make an article. Again, we have perfectly fine articles in which to insert this piece of news in a paragraph or two. — JFG ^talk 02:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph or two? Try a sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was feeling generous…

— JFG ^talk 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this is really a merge discussion, right? It doesn't seem to be a proposal to delete. Maybe this is the wrong place; WP:PM. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Not notable enough for its own article. From what I gather, an unidentified source said that unidentified Russian generals were bragging about something. ~Awilley (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ludicrously too soon. It has only a single source, one that that is full of unidentified "a source says", "a source tells" stuff (the other "sources" are not sources at all - they merely repeat the CNN one). Is this a case of trawling through today's news and see what article you can create out of it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Use existing articles. Every day's headline doesn't require its own page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pronto before the masses show up because IT IS POORLY SOURCED. Cudos to nom for doing this by night, thought it does have a Sanhedrin-ish feel. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment on my insomnia activities, and educating me about the Sanhedrin! — JFG ^talk 03:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as nom said, does not require its own article and could be possibly merged elsewhere. Others have raised valid WP:NOTNEWS points though as well that are worth considering (hence the 'delete' part of vote). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Casprings (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (preferred) or merge to Michael T. Flynn (since it's not only about the election) per all above. ansh 666 22:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom captures my sentiment perfectly. This endless stream of Trump-related articles is getting rather tedious. Some editors really need to familiarise themselves with WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Whatever material is not there, can be preserved, there. Sagecandor (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & cover in respective articles. I'm wondering if setting up deletion sorting page for Trump-related deletion discussions is appropriate at this point. I've voted on three in the past two days. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 27 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 Procedural Close. The page had been speedied by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brainspotting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable piece of promotional FRINGE that should have been speedied but that option was cut off. Now we have to waste time on a deletion discussion. There are no more reliable sources about this now than there was when we deleted this back in 2009. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no more reliable sources about this now than there was when we deleted this back in 2009 Are there?: 1, 2, 3. Adam9007 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark dispute and two shit sources. Not even close. This is an encyclopedia not another piece of trash in the blogosphere. This page is raw abuse of WIkipedia to promote FRINGE quackery. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the suspicion of pseudoscience related to the article, it does not appear that "brainspotting" is even necessarily it's own subject; it seems to be more like a slang term used in conjunction with Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing therapy (EMDR). I too am inclined towards supporting deletion. Scriblerian1 (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete One big piece of WP:NOT cut down to look like an acceptable stub. Before the CSD was removed and the article gutted, I thought it was hopelessly OR, a rambling essay, even fringe fluff. It was promotional in a subtle sort of way that did not trigger the immediate, visceral response G11 articles usually evoke in me. If I'd just honored the WP:CSD#G11 when I had the chance, we would not be here, but I held back. A link to a Lawyers-are-us site & 2 local news fluff pieces does not, as Jytdog put, show an improvement in sourcing Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As offputting as the name may be, Brainspotting is an important new treatment modality for PTSD. It is not EMDR, although it seems to work by a similar mechanism...to the extent that we actually understand the mechanism of EMDR, that is. I hold a PhD in Psychiatric Rehabilitation, and have personally benefited from both EMDR and (particularly) Brainspotting, so I'm speaking from at least some foundation. I have no conflicts of interest: I don't provide psychotherapy or any other PTSD treatment, don't personally know the gentleman who developed Brainspotting, don't have any financial stake in any of this, etc. I will try to improve the post in the near future, but in the meantime I really hope it won't be deleted. --Aaronjlevitt (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Here's at least one article (2013) in Medical Hypotheses, a reasonably well-respected journal: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2013.03.005[reply]

@Aaronjlevitt:Welcome to Wikipedia! Could you put it in the reference section of the article? use template:citewebThanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No - Medical Hypothesis is a low quality ref, full of speculation, as it name communicates. Its unreliability has been discussed many times at WT:MED -- see the several discussions here) And the article already bases as much content as is OK using that source. We source content about health to literature reviews in high quality journals as described in WP:MEDRS. There are no such sources about this. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:10, 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 Keep. Research has shown the topic as meeting WP:NFILM through WP:NPOSSIBLE. We do not delete notable topics simply because they need work. By keeping, that work may be encouraged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropophagous 2000[edit]

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

No secondary sourcing found; current sources are unreliable. Digging found no more sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep IMDb external reviews shows 14 reviews here while some are unreliable I am not sure about the foreign language ones, Cinefantastique is listed as a WikiProject Film reliable source but unfortunately thats a 404 link, but the review should exist if it can be found online, not sure about Horror News net but the other English ones seem unreliable but that still leaves a number of foreign language sources Atlantic306 (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Managed to find the Cinefantastique french review at the wayback machine here so that's one reliable source at least Atlantic306 (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Seems notable, but needs additional sources. If not kept, should be Draftified. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Roberts[edit]

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

Is playing junior ice hockey even a claim of significance? Anyway WP:GNG, WP:SPORTBIO Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:59, 19 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. AaronWikia (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two undistinguished junior league seasons, period. Per the above, no need to reiterate links. Ravenswing 03:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear notable at this time per WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:25, 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tapas Kumar Das[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of four listed by me for AfD at the same time:

Manas Kumar Das (AfD)
Pandit Surendra Narayan Das (AfD)
Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan (AfD)
Tapas Kumar Das (AfD)

The above were all created by the same editor (who has a conflict of interest and has made almost all edits to these articles). One article he created may be notable. That is Alaka Das.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the cited sources, one doesn't mention him, and the other two only list his name among several others. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, and ProQuest found only two brief mentions: [21] and [22]. This does not amount to significant coverage. Fails WP:BASIC. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:54, 28 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of four listed by me for AfD at the same time:

Manas Kumar Das (AfD)
Pandit Surendra Narayan Das (AfD)
Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan (AfD)
Tapas Kumar Das (AfD)

The above were all created by the same editor (who has a conflict of interest and has made almost all edits to these articles). One article he created may be notable. That is Alaka Das.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable family-run music school. It is unclear what level of education it offers, whether it is accredited, and whether it grants degrees. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, JSTOR, and eight national newspapers, including by Bengali script name, found nothing more substantive than [23]. Fails WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:53, 27 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 21:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Surendra Narayan Das[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of four listed by me for AfD at the same time:

Manas Kumar Das (AfD)
Pandit Surendra Narayan Das (AfD)
Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan (AfD)
Tapas Kumar Das (AfD)

The above were all created by the same editor (who has a conflict of interest and has made almost all edits to these articles). One article he created may be notable. That is Alaka Das.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the cited sources do not mention Suren Das, but merely confirm the existence of something else mentioned in the article. Those sources that do mention Suren do so in a passing way, usually in the context of his notable brother, Sudhin Das. No clear significance is asserted. Notability is not inherited. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:13, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manas Kumar Das[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of four listed by me for AfD at the same time:

Manas Kumar Das (AfD)
Pandit Surendra Narayan Das (AfD)
Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan (AfD)
Tapas Kumar Das (AfD)

The above were all created by the same editor (who has a conflict of interest and has made almost all edits to these articles). One article he created may be notable. That is Alaka Das.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the cited sources: four don't mention him at all, and the other five are passing mentions. The deepest source found by searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, GALE, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest was this short interview [24]. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:19, 27 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.