< 23 May	25 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 Delete per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skaz One[edit]

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)).

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

I can't find any substantial reliable and independent referencing. The first reference is primary to a record of birth, the second about the subject's father and not mentioning the subject at all. The third is an interview (non-independent), and the fourth is a two-line blurb on a site of questionable reliability. I do not see sufficient reference material to sustain this article. A search reveals no better material to use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know Skaz One, have done photography and video work for him and have been to many of his performances. I also know a lot of people who listen to his music including me. I have seen his videos and he has a lot of Spotify listeners, which is where I stream my music. I ve seen his following in person as well at his shows and have seen him featured on another major artists CD from the Bay Area. Messy Marv's Thizz City. I remember seeing him for years on different CDs and I'm pretty sure he's worked with people as famous as Berner or Necro. I think he is significant to the music of California and the hip hop scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyh551 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — Ashleyh551 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I am afraid, Ashleyh551, that what you personally have observed is not relevant, because there is no way for anyone else to verify it. Nor is the number of fans relevant. Wikipedia operates on published reliable sources, and if no one has published anything significant about this person, there will not be an article about him at this time. DES ^(talk) 05:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a Google search and found no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of this rapper. There are plenty of the expected passing mentions on social media, blogs, music marketing sites and so on, but nothing of substance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I still have concerns regarding the author being the subject of the article or having a conflict of interest. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:14, 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 redirect to University of Pennsylvania. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mood and Anxiety Research and Treatment Program[edit]

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

I found no reliable coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant academic WP:PROMO. WP is not a lab website. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete No RS - not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Pennsylvania. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EUobserver[edit]

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

This article is about a website purporting to be a newspaper. The article relies on no other sources and its claims are unable to be checked. Pete (talk) 22:42, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. There's a lack of substantive information about this organisation, and the article is itself vague; it has coverage in other Wikipedias but with a similar lack of references; at most there are links to news stories in more reputable sources that mention it in passing. It's important to be accurate on this because of its links with various euroskeptic groupings in Brussels that include controversial far-right and nationalist organisations like League of Polish Families, National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria, and Ukip. The article lacks up-to-date references on this subject, or indeed anything else to do with the publication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is it notable, it is one of the principle sources of news on the EU. It is cited in various peer reviewed publications that I use concerning EU affairs as a reliable source. A quick glance through my own University textbooks on the EU reveals multiple references to this online paper. The article does certainly need improvement and better sources, but deleting it because you don't like its association at its founding 17 years ago with a eurosceptic group is a gross abuse of wikipedia's editing policy. EU explained (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-written entire article to use WP:NPOV and utilising WP:RS. I have deleted all non-attributable information. For its circulation figures, I have written that it "claims" them, as I agree there is a lack of good information out there on this. With regards to it failing WP:GNG, the published sources I have provided, including one academic publication and one English language textbook (used in pretty much any EU politics university reading list) have both described it as one of the primary sources of EU news, together with EurActiv and Politico Europe. Enough. This conversation is a prime example of users failing to take account of WP:Global. EU explained (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whatever claims may be made for this, the claims are only supported by their own web-site. There is not a single independent reference. Fails WP:GNG despite the recent removal of the notability tag from the article. The editing pattern also shows a considerable streak of WP:COI from its two (one ?) main contributor(s) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that the article is adequately sourced, my reasons for listing this article for deletion no longer apply. Good to have an editor who knows what he's about improve the article. Thanks, EU explained! --Pete (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clear from the content. --Mervyn (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Article now has proper sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaena Morisho[edit]

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

Non notable singer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Award nominations are not major duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. Seems like a clear issue of systematic bias to even be considering it.--TM 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Namiba. Which part of Basic? Let's look at the sources (at time of writing [1]).

1. Press release

2. Press release

3. Press release

4. Dead press release. Nothing to do with North Carolina Headlines.

5. Press release page with no sign of Morisho

6. Primary

7. Her talking about herself. Blog. "ArtistRack is here to help Artist promote their music."

8. 7 again

9. Press release. Nothing to do with ArtistRack

10. A shop

11. Reproduction of press release. from here "DatSyn is the breakthrough data syndication and content sharing tool that allows you to effortlessly distribute content to numerous social media platforms, news platforms, and other media channels".

12. 7 again

13. "Cause I Can Marketing & Advertising"

14. Press release hosted by PR service.

15. Short, routine, this song exists type press release. "online platform for branding DJs, Music, etc."

16. Press release hosted by PR service.

17. Primary

18. Primary

No help from them. Award? Nope, no sign of any credible awards. So which part of Basic?

"systematic bias"?? What, Wikipedia's well known systematic bias against people from California? Nope. Perhaps Wikipedia's bias against paid advertising from sockpuppet farms. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Someone has posted an advert on Upwork requesting that edits are made to avoid deletion: [2] (account required). SmartSE (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with duffbeerforme's assessment of the current sourcing and my own searches have not found other sources that would demonstrate that WP:NMUSIC is met. SmartSE (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator MassiveYR ♠ 21:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She has two albums and two nomination. I can't find many indepedent sources but I found her VEVO. Ppchris(talk) 01:01 ,05 May 2017 (UTC)
- The first of the upworkers? Not two albums, not on an "important"label, not credible awards (buy a nomination). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 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) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure to find reliable sources shows that it is not notable and fails WP:NMUSIC. Further to this User:Ppchris is an SPA that has also created You Don't Know (Zaena Morisho album) which should also go to AFD if this continues on the delete route. - Pmedema (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - issuing a single EP is rarely sufficient to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not pass WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guideline. What about the articles on her albums? MartinJones (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If some substantial, relaible, and independent coverage of this person's work surfaces in the future, then the article can be re-created. But it hasn't been shown in this discussion that such coverage exists yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juventa[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO - TheMagnificentist 08:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After searching for RSes, this appears to have no coverage at all. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - It was revealed officially today on the major magazine Billboard that Jordin Post, AKA Juventa, has been producing music with Luke Shipstad for several months under the alias KUURO on label Monstercat. Link here to the article. With this revelation, we will be seeing a lot more significant media coverage of Post. Clbsfn (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if your last sentence is true, it's still considered WP:CRYSTAL. The article is about Juventa, not KUURO or any of his other aliases. Significant reliable independent sources about this topic Juventa, are difficult to locate and it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for musicians. - TheMagnificentist 18:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will try add to the article existing, independent sources on Post's work with KUURO, since that group has received some coverage for many months before it was revealed that Post is one of its two members. Clbsfn (talk) 18:58, 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) 22:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We almost always delete DJs, who are run of the mill. A short notice in Billboard is not sufficiently significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Are articles from the website YourEDM not considered significant coverage? Also, the article was not merely a "short notice" of Post, since Post makes up half of the group that the entire Bilboard article was discussing, and the purpose of the article was not only to officially reveal KUURO's identities but to premiere their latest release. Clbsfn (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This page has a list of reliable electronic music news sources, and Your EDM is on the list. Clbsfn (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - (YouTube, Soundcloud aren't reliable and Above & Beyond's website might be considered self-published/primary) The newly added sources don't even mention Juventa (except one). The article is about Juventa not KUURO. If it was about KUURO then I guess it could survive deletion. I would recommend renamng the page to KUURO (after the deletion discussion concluded), then maybe add Juventa as an alias. - TheMagnificentist 05:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just doesn't meet GNG. Lot's of inadequate sources. The BillBoard is disappointing. and this is why WP:OUTCOMES. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met. Remixes of notable songs don't make the remixer notable unless the remixes themselves were released & charted. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kedia[edit]

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

Does not establish third-party notability. Even if everything said is true, it doesn't warrant an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*delete~~ routine coverage and nothing links to this, which is a good indicator of lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep based on indepth sources found. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve there's now evidence of sufficiently in-depth coverage in WP:RS including The Economic Times, Daily News and Analysis, Business Standard, etc. I personally think most stockbrokers are a bunch of useless parasites at best, but that's neither here nor there. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO per User:Akanksha Aggarwal; clearly WP:UPE and this article is doubtless part of their somewhat blatant 'specialised in social media which created brand identity using social media' for this particular client. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just barely passes the general notability guideline, in my view. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and publish Sufficient in-depth coverage in WP:RS including The Economic Times, Daily News and Analysis, Business Standard, Business World etc has been provided. In case of any more feedback please do share. thanks User: Akanksha AggarwalAkanksha Aggarwal (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Akanksha Aggarwal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has received significant coverage. See;

All these publications are reliable sources. Checking them will show that the subject passes WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:08, 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) 19:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emagination Computer Camps[edit]

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

Non-notable summary camp provider. Google News returns mainly press releases or recycled press releases. Article is written in a promotional style and fails the standards of WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an advertisement, doesn't look particularly notable, and all the references are commercial links.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mena[edit]

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

Non notable singer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Bombardment of sources lacks any good ones. A mix of press releases, primary and puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award listed are of highly promotional and dubious value, being conferred by promotional organizations. The cited sources are nearly all event listing so or promotional. There is no other indication of notability under WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even if he were notable, which I doubt, this page is so poorly written that it needs a fresh start. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Great Father. While the consensus is split, it is split between delete and redirect. Only one of the delete arguments speaks of not redirecting, while the other two mention that he might be known (not notable) for the film. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haneef Adeni[edit]

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

Directing one movie is not enough to establish any notability. All the sources provided just mention the person's name while talking about the movie. Notability is not inherited and also fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 18:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - actually, directing one notable movie is grounds for notability per WP:CREATIVE, and however bad it may be, "The Great Father" is a notable movie with reviews in the Times of India, The Indian Express, etc. WP:NOTINHERITED has nothing to do with it. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Lulu have reached the consensus that directing one movie, is not enough to satisfy WP:DIRECTOR. Movies getting reviews in notable publication does not imply that the director is notable in his own regard, and therefore WP:NOTINHERITED is applicable. There is anyway no indepth coverage of the person for WP:GNG, and the only thing mentioned in the article apart from the fact that he has directed the said movie is that he was born in Thrissur, which incidentally is unreferenced. At best the article can be redirected to the only movie he has directed as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jupitus Smart 04:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misreading of WP:DIRECTOR, which clearly states (in bullet 3) that one well-known work automatically makes its creator WP:Notable, where secondary literature exists for the work. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply from a work to its creator, only from creators to their works. As far as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Lulu, that doesn't trump WP:DIRECTOR Newimpartial (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you believe run of the mill coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG, then I cannot help it. WP:NOTINHERITED applies because all the references mentioned are about the movie, and not about the director. Creator is a relative term and the movie is not the exclusive work of the said person, but of a collective of artists. All the coverage for the movie stems from the fact that the movie had an impressive star cast, and not because the said person directed it, and that is the reason why WP:NOTINHERITED is applicable. A myopic reading of WP:DIRECTOR without looking at the larger perspective of whether the individual himself is independently notable and satisfied WP:GNG, was not done in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Lulu and that is why I mentioned it. Jupitus Smart 06:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the director has not "created or played a major role in co-creating" the film? Because that is what WP:CREATIVE requires, nothing more, and no personal notability is required outside of the work. Newimpartial (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harping the same point again and again does not add anything to the discussion. At the very beginning of the page where WP:CREATIVE appears,the Basic Criteria for notability, including indepth coverage and the like, are mentioned as compulsory requirements. It is also mentioned that meeting one or more criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included. I would rather disengage from such a meaningless conversation, if you cannot understand that. Jupitus Smart 06:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken about the structure of that page. WP:BASIC notability ensures that the subject is notable (except for certain exclusions). The specific criteria, such as WP:CREATIVE, do not guarantee but allow notability even if WP:BASIC is not met. Newimpartial (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to reiterate anything and am disengaging per my word. Have a good day. Jupitus Smart 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name is best presented in the film's page, not as a stand alone article, yet. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect known only for the film so redirect to The Great Father. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally the only information (other than birthplace) in this so-called biography is that this guy directed one film. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:BIO1E. no need for redirect. Coverage is scanty. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, to the one single thing he is known for. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mounted Battle Command On The Move[edit]

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

Article is purely definitional in nature, has no sources, and I can find no secondary sources. It had a contested speedy deletion in the past. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (preferably); if it morphed into some other acronym, then redirect. This reads like an abandoned draft in article space.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no other reason to keep. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not shown to be notable and not sourced. Kierzek (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources or context it's hard to even begin to make sense of this. --Lockley (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was interested in what this is about... but no sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Harris (Rapper)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find any notable third party sources mentioning this rapper using Google News and the article is only using primary sources. Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC either and is very WP:PROMO.-- Dane ^talk 21:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, there are no credible third party sources to back up facts and verify information. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references provided are third-party and I can't find much else. It doesn't help that the article is quite spammish. Pichpich (talk) 18:54, 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. Sandstein 11:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khmerload[edit]

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

related page: In Vichet

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Only real claim of notability is its funding which does not raise it to a notable level in either criteria. The last reference does highlight some data that could link to notability. Page has other issues but they are mostly cleanup items. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and GNG. I removed some unnecessary detail and puffery. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Border Men[edit]

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

Non-notable play that will only be first staged next saturday. Accordingly, there is very little (if any) significant coverage of the play in reliable third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, this is WP:TOOSOON. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with swiftness and contempt. Is this a server for people's resumes now is it? Jacx2 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is definitely too soon if the play hasn't even premièred yet! I think the article may be salvageable and will return in a few months, when reviews have surfaced and it's nominated for awards, though. ↅ𝜞 _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 16:46, 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 as the keep arguments failed to establish notability via multiple reliable sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katfyr[edit]

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

I originally tagged the page for speedy deletion but that tag was removed. Now taking it to AfD because the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contesting the Proposed Deletion:

Please note that I have addressed the concerns by Meatsgain about not having many reliable sources. Initially, the article had only 4 cited source at the time that it was moved into this board (for deletion within 1 week), and as a response I have added 5 new sources including 3 from the truly notable sites beatport.com and anime-expo.org, and this has been done to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1. Note that this artist falls within a specialized market and subculture, and therefore some of the sites offering reviews are also specialized and not well known. The inclusion of the well known music distributor "Beatport" and the anime/cultural exposition organization "Anime-Expo", and offering a total of 9 unbiased references should provide enough evidence about the validity of this artist. Nevertheless, thank you for allowing this improvement. pbigio (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, to meet WP:MUSICBIO #5, I have included notable mention of Katfyr's multiple releases with major music labels in the EDM industry including Armada Music, UKF Music, Hypnotic Records, and FiXT_Music. I will continue working on this page during the weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by pbigio (talk • contribs) 220:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Further additions" - Contesting the Proposed Deletion: Please note that I have added more notability items, including that the artist has made multiple releases, over 18 singles or EPs, via the notable electronic music distribution site Beatport. I have also added information about the artists' nationality, instruments used, and other biographical facts.pbigio (talk) 3:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Addressing addition of more reliable sources for notability and more attributes of notability": At this point I clarify that for Katfyr notability, as per WP:MUSICBIO, has been addressed by including mention notable work along with reliable sources that have been added (including beatport.com, armadamusic.com, ukf.com, and the website and youtube page for the company PreSonus Studio One. Examples of notable work added include his work with award winning Emma Hewitt and then releasing the associated remixes through Armada Music. The reliable source for this is the links to the Beatport music distribution website. This aspect of notability occurs twice, first with Emma Hewitt's Foolish Boy and then with the song "Rewind." Another example of notable work include the fact that Katfyr was able to reach position number 1 in the Beatport Dubstep Charts in May 2014 with his original song "Lose Control", which meets WP:MUSICBIO #7. For this point, I have also included more reliable sources have been added since the first one was simply a website that tracks Beatport charts, in addition mention has been added to the website for the company that makes PreSonus Studio One which includes many links to videos and other articles which also mention the fact that Katfyr did indeed reach position number 1 on the dubstep charts in Beatport. Another example of notability, which meets WP:MUSICBIO #10 for inclusion in a notable compilation, I have added the work Katfyr did in two music compilations by World-Touring band Celldweller, and released through the well known record label FiXT_Music. Lastly, there has been the addition of a full discography which shows at least 18 different releases that are present on the Beatport.com website. pbigio (talk) 8:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am sorry because I have invested interest in this article and done some cleanup editing. I have searched online to find better mainstream sources to no avail. I even located Metal Life Magazine because the only source provided (as for others) for the recent addition of a link with Katfyr to 'Bobbie and Neko Heavygrinder' is a YouTube video. I have updated the source to the interview page in the mazgazine in August 2015, read the print article and listened to the associated youtube video (twice). This resulted in my placing a 'failed verification' tag on the article. Entertaining about the wasp but not even the print article provides a hint about Katfyr or in the almost nine minutes of Youtube. Further Beatport is just an online music store, which of course sells music online. It is in their self-interest to promote anyone they are selling, including naming an artist as in 'position number 1' for their sales. Multiple citations are for Beatport. PreSonus Studio One, our article with its own problems, does not mention Katfyr at all. Lastly, none of the Discography is sourced and I am doing no further investigation. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the few issues raised above by user "Fylbecatuloss": In this case the user is stating that she/he has invested interest in this article but it is unlikely the interest is electronic dance music due to the user's lack of understanding of the high relevance of the Beatport charts, or the validity of Beatport as a reference. Please note that I simply use Beatport as a reference to show a valid link to the record labels, as this proves that it is a fact that the artist complies with notability requirement WP:MUSICBIO #7 and WP:MUSICBIO #10. Furthermore, all record labels listed, to meet requirement WP:MUSICBIO #5 do not have to necessarily be linked to the Beatport website, and I could simply add direct links to the label website. In addition, at this point, the user Fylbecatulos may be simply upset about the first interview that I added to show that Katfyr is now working with Heavygrinder, because the interview was not clear enough. However I have corrected and added a more detailed interview. In either case, this small section which is upsetting this user, can simply be edited out and the user should not have added these points as reasons for deleting the entire article, or shine light on the other sources. At this point, I'm afraid that this user will be creating further bias by going after the other points that I have clearly addressed here. For this reason, I want it to be noted that I consider this user's post on this page to be completely off topic and could have been addressed as a correction to the article. I believe marking the article for deletion was an initially hostile opinion by one user and this is now simply spreading to create negative opinions on other users. I request for this process to be completed now as my points have been raised and I have addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1, #5, #7 and #10 and the only user interested in this article to be deleted has only addressed WP:MUSICBIO #1. Furthermore, in over 4 days no one else has taken the time to validly contest the notability points I have addressed. I consider this process starting to be unfair. I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for over 10 years and the posts I have added have always been improved by other users, rather than contested and put to shame, and this is the experience that I believe was the original idea for users within Wikipedia, to help build a productive community, not to attack other people's efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.38.98 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Adding signature for the post above: pbigio (talk) 9:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment further: Ignoring the bad faith assumptions written about me with grace and peace, I want to make one further comment. A major problem with the section about Neko and the infobox and in the article itself is: the only name used for the artist and the title is "Katfyr'. The article and video I tagged as failed verification certainly names 'Neko' but nowhere do they say this is an alias for Katfyr. Further confusing is the birth name JayJay. So we have all these names and aliases lacking proof that they are indeed one and the same artist. This is one reason reliable sourcing is so important in order for an article to be accepted that is a Biography of a living person. Deciding something is true just because you assure us that it is without WP:Reliable Sources is WP:Original Research. I have a request on my talk page now from a professional writer that can't get his Biographical article published because of the pushback over sources. It is nothing personal. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 23:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the new issues raised above by user "Fylbecatuloss": As expected the conversation here goes on with the initial unfair base and negative connotation, adding additional critics to the article itself as opposed to helping improve the article which is the way Wikipedia was originally designed to be used. Nevertheless, I have decided to delete the section that is being contested by this user along with any references to Heavygrinder as a group. I'm doing this despite knowing that the user does not understand the market of independent electronic music artists and merely stating the sources are not reliable without establish a solid frame of reference, proof or substance to this or any other claim.Pbigio (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pbigio, let's remain civil here. The problem I see with the page, outside of what Fylbecatulous noted, is that while the page appears to have more than enough references to verify the page's content, most are unreliable. Of the page's 38 references, only 3 are somewhat reliable and detail Katfyr. The rest are either unreliable, blogs, mention the subject in passing, or do not cover the subject at all. The sources that are reliable include:

The 3 sources listed above however, is not enough to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Addressing the comment raised by user Meatsgains": Just for the record, user Meatsgains had originally marked the page for speedy deletion and mentioned that the article contained unreliable sources. At that time one of the sources was in fact soundista.com and the user is now mentioning this as a reliable source, thus further proving either lack of true interest or knowledge of the subject at hand. Furthermore, the user is claiming that only 3 of the references in this article are reliable, when I have addressed the reliability issue multiple times on this deletion board, including mentioning that Beatport, along with any Record Label website listed on my references are indeed reliable and show proof of the work. These sources are reliable and show that the artist has released records in highly notable record labels, multiple times, and collaborated with artists such as Emma Hewitt, Celldweller and Klaypex. I must reassure you, that I have gone beyond what's typically required from the Wikipedia community of users, and addressed multiple notability items as per WP:MUSICBIO.Pbigio (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want to get into details, I can get into details too. First, when I originally tagged the page for speedy deletion, there was one reliable source, ONE. Did you read what the speedy delete tag said? You're a new editor so my guess is no. A7 notes, "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."(bold emphasis by me) The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. And second, Beatport does not cover the subject what so ever. All Beatport can be used for is playing Katfy's music. I suggest you read through WP:RS before trying to "teach" me what is and is not reliable. Meatsgains (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NMUSIC; having a song at the top of a weekly genre-specific music chart probably meets "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style", Power~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 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) 01:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also agree with the Keep decision by user Power~enwiki and adds an additional notability point. I must also mention it is easy for some users to focus too much on why they want to delete the article without really digging in or having the required understanding of the subject as pertaining to sub-culture music. In over a week of discussion the comments added for deletion fail to directly address the multiple points added for notability, and at the same time show lack of understanding of the sources added or why those were added for reference. The best example is the way the website Beatport is mentioned and disregarded as "unreliable". Statement such as “All Beatport can be used for is playing music,” further proves my point. I will make no further clarifications of what Beatport is, or how it is reliable and relevant in this case, because I have been clear enough in my explanations above and now the burden of proof falls on anyone arguing against the use of Beatport as directly used to sustain one of my multiple points addressing WP:MUSICBIO. In summary, multiple notability points, in addition to the one addressed by the addition of Beatport links, have been addressed by me and also by Power~enwiki already. In summary, the article is now much improved version from the original, and the comments added on this board give detail on how the respective notability point were addressed by following advice of other Wikipedia users who also helped improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbigio (talk • contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have tended to delete DJs who get half the media coverage he has. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines for Articles for Deletion make it clear that people arguing for deletion should also should make solid points. So far, in over 2 weeks we are getting no solid points against multiple points made for WP:BIO (Keep). It is likely that no one can truly make a true solid argument as to why this article must be deleted, or if so, at least they are totally failing to make the point on this board. Furthermore, the latest user are simply making blanket statements and in one case showing clear bias against what they consider "DJs". I have no further comments at this point, but it would be appropriate for admins to be moderated or otherwise counseled when clearly showing bias against a specific group.Pbigio (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Zero albums on any labels. A weekly genre chart does not equal most prominent representatives and we don't even have a weekly chart, beatport charts aren't like that. Nothing in WP:MUSIC is satisfied. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, another delete post is made making claim against this article for the 3rd week now without reading my previous posts. The user appears to state that that work performed with Klayton, Celldweller, and multiple releases through FiXT_Music, Armada Music and UKF are not notable. And then the user proceeds to vaguely repeat arguments already made other users and addressed by me in high detail 3 weeks ago. Yet again, it must be clarified that Katfyr is a sub-genre artist and the users here are simply holding him to the standards of mainstream music (full albums), not even mainstream EDM where it is common for artists to release notable work without having to release full albums (as it was in the late 90's).Pbigio (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-genre artist are held to the same standards as mainstream artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standards you are personally setting here perhaps, because you are refering to albums where this artist fulfills notability by recordings, which include singles as it is common for artists in the Dubstep and other EDM sub-genres. In your statement basically you are discounting his work based on your experience of what is considered notable for mainstream music, but WP:MUSICBIO allows for recordings and singles to be counted. Pbigio (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per delete rationales above, thanks to @Fylbecatulous: and others for doing the heavy lifting.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address the last comment, I must repeat there has been no heavy lifting as I have addressed WP:MUSICBIO 1, 5, 7 and 10 and users are basically commenting without going deep into the discussion. Furthermore, the issue described by Fylbecatulous was addressed. Please make sure to read the responses before adding a comment here as if this was a voting contest.

Comment on last comment: Pbigio Regarding the resolved issue, I cannot discern how that is so: I still have three inline issue tags on the article in the last paragraph you amended. Your resolution just makes the problem worse and in any other article, that entire paragraph would be deleted as questionable speculation and unsupported conclusions. (The sources do not support it and your comments in that paragraph actually agree with that.) I have left it because it helps demonstrate the weakness of the foundation of this article. Fylbecatulous talk 19:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tip Donaldson[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR, WP:NTENNIS, WP:NHOCKEY, or WP:BIO. In short, it's WP:Vanispamcruftisement, with an evident WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Autobiography judging by the amount of unsourced detail about his early life. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This should have gone through CSD, this reads like a really bad resume. Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service. South Nashua (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did think long and hard about CSD, but the article does make a "credible assertion of notability" with its (unsourced) mentions of film roles and modelling for well-known companies. Since there's nothing about these online, I can only guess that they were minor acting and modelling roles, probably uncredited. And you do have to wade through eight feet of treacle to find those small claims to notability. Uncle Roy (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the attempts weren't credible, but I can understand going through AFD vs CSD. Either way, this subject is nowhere near notable enough to warrant an article. South Nashua (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So, this individual doesn't have any roles, but the reason he has a Wikipedia article is because he was signed with a talent agency and has interests? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His roles are indeed small uncredited roles (acting as well as modeling), however the roles are legitimate and verifiable through the referenced channel on Twitch in the past broadcasts. Also, the article has more than just his interests and the talent agency signing, it also details his successful entertainment career online, which I believe is noteworthy enough by itself for an article. StevieWondersEyes (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)— StevieWondersEyes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The references don't mention the individual and Twitch is not a reliable source. Quick question: are you Tip Donaldson? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The individual is of course mentioned in the references (and quite obviously in the content he created himself). May I ask why Twitch is not a reliable source of information on the subject when it is of course related to the content on the site itself? I believe the argument in favor of his successful career still stands. Also please refrain from any accusations of vanity.StevieWondersEyes (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's very common on Wikipedia to check into a potential conflict of interest and/or autobiography, so you're going to have to get used to getting checked for that. For sourcing, you need reliable, 3rd party articles and not Wikia pages, YouTube videos and Twitch videos- utilize articles written about the individual. You should probably read this. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I understand why you may think that. However, when debating in an article for deletion, simply accusing one of vanity [to be avoided] as it is not valid reason for deletion. As for sources, the references are the best sources to be found when talking about that very subject. For example when talking about the success of his twitch, of course the best source will be the twitch page itself, etc. and of course any video should be referenced itself as the source and obviously more reliable than any articles written.StevieWondersEyes (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your rationale and I recognize that you have the grasp to be a compatible and reasonable contributor. However, COI is serious and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains in full detail why those associated with the subjects should be avoided-- I say this as a person who has to bar himself from editing pages about actors I know. So, I must ask, do you have a relation to Tip Donaldson to declare? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No StevieWondersEyes (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask why you've uploaded this baby photo of him as your own work? Uncle Roy (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails notability for WP:NACTOR and WP:Bio. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet NACTOR. roles are not sufficient. Coverage not sufficient in terms of depth to met GNG. The article creator did a fine job with what he had, but subject just isn't notable. (If this is a case of WP:PAID, creator certainly earned his pay. The baby photo was just over the top, though.) It is a bit like Vanity Fair (magazine), isn't it. So, Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement it is.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise yourself. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London's Underground Stations: A Social and Architectural Study[edit]

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

Book is not notable. Tentinator 17:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I do see in Google Books that other books reference this one, that is not significant coverage. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is non-notable and very likely self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 03:02, 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 redirect to April 2010 U.S consulate and ANP attack. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Timergarah bombings[edit]

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

The event is already covered in the April 2010 U.S consulate and ANP attack article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect (is there such a thing?) to April 2010 U.S consulate and ANP attack. --Lockley (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libre (word)[edit]

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

Previously deleted under the title "Libre" (see discussion), later undeleted and dragged through AFC after some cosmetic tweaks. The issues raised in the previous nomination have not been addressed at all; I think the nomination statement I wrote back then could stand today as-is. (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure what it speaks about the Articles for Creation process.) Here is a new rationale anyway.

This article spends most time discussing various strands of the broadly-construed free-culture movement (which is already covered elsewhere anyway), with a particular focus on using the word "libre" when referring to them, even if the references provided in the article do not even contain the word. After that, it goes off wild tangents in order to connect topics with very little to no relation to each other. Please especially take note of sentences like "Several albums with title tracks containing the word libre have achieved international acclaim and some have been nominated for Grammy Awards." (no citation for this, of course) and completely made-up claims like that the masks of Pussy Riot members are inspired by lucha libre wrestlers. No, they are not: this is simply what you end up with when you take a piece of cloth to conceal your face and cut some holes in it for the eyes and the mouth; there are very few degrees of freedom here in how the result may end up looking. This is silly pareidolia.

This is not an encyclopedia article, but an original-research, WP:COATRACK, rambling essay-like piece apparently written to advance an obscure-ish activist cause. Even if an article about the ostensible topic of this article (the word "libre") were warranted, it better be written from scratch. —Keφr 15:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is as bad as the nominator suggests. The page does nothing that the Libre disambiguation page doesn't already do. WP:NOT a dictionary. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also consider deleting Gratis versus libre. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure any of those sources discuss the concept of "Libre" in the sense of the article. Article seems to have come straight out of someone's head.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Patna FC[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Qed237 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found only 1 article on the subject (which may be a similarily name team as it is high school team), thus not enough to write an article. Spshu (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found only one ref mentioning this team, a passing mention. Surely not notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable football club, no independent reliable source found and there is no evidence that the club has ever played at a notable level of football. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 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 delete. Fails GNG, non notable low level league Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014-15 Karachi Football League[edit]

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

Non notable and completely unreferenced season article for a regional football league. Qed237 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't usually have season articles for such a low level of football; in addition to this, I can't see this meeting GNG Spiderone 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a quick search via Google I found absoulty nothing on this league with a search giving me results of this page and similar so therfor this fails WP:GNG guidelines and it is a fail for me Matt294069 is coming 03:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alabama gubernatorial election, 2018#Republican primary. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Carrington[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG as it states here WP:POLOUTCOMES "American county-level legislators are considered to be similarly not-inherently notable just like municipal politicians." unless they pass GNG and here I don't believe he does. Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alabama gubernatorial election, 2018#Republican primary. He isn't notable, but he could reasonably be a search term for the upcoming election, and would become notable if he wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect per Muboshgu. People do not get articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in party primaries — a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to clear WP:NPOL on his political activities. But neither smalltown city councils nor county commissions are offices that pass NPOL, there's no evidence of preexisting notability for reasons outside of politics, the article is written more like a campaign brochure than a proper encyclopedia article, and the referencing is a mixture of primary sources and routine coverage of his candidacy announcement, with very little evidence of reliable source coverage about him in any context that would actually support preexisting notability at all. So no prejudice against recreation in 2018 if he wins the gubernatorial election, but nothing here right now is enough to get him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 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. Cruft. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sports clubs on social media[edit]

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

Non-notable list of clubs based on social media. Qed237 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I just saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football clubs on social media which resulted in delete. An article also created by this editor. Qed237 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: violates WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and possibly few other policies. Not at all encyclopaedic. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under CSD G4 as a possible recreation relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football clubs on social media Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - largely per this discussion of a rather similar article, would be willing to reconsider my vote if the format of the article was different but at the moment it largely fails WP:LISTCRUFT as stated above. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate Spiderone 12:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this WP:LISTCRUFT. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic average home attendances of football clubs[edit]

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

First of all it is an non-notable list of attendances. Secondly, there is no evidence that this is complete as all numbers are individually sourced, but also it is an arbitrary cut-off point at 30,000. Qed237 (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate, non-notable list. Cubbie15fan (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I might have suggested a merge, but since this information is already in other articles, it renders this article unneeded. Also as the above vote points out the article is pretty vague in its inclusion and exclusion of information. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Precedent is fairly mixed, compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Hockey League attendance figures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at football clubs and leagues (hmm, based on that, one could consider a speedy WP:CSD#G4 here). On the discussion above: There is clear evidence of "notability", as attendance numbers are part of every match report and widely reported in multiple sources. The question is whether such a list violates WP:NOTSTATS and whether the mix of leagues is something seen in other such statistics or not (if Wikipedia is the only place that publishes such a list, it violates WP:SYNTH, for example like List of sports attendance figures probably does). As to the suggestion of a merge: where would I find the information what the ten clubs with the highest average league attendances are? —Kusma (t·c) 20:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: some websites such as FIFA or UEFA's official websites might have that information. Maybe a statistic site such as soccerway. There are some sources such as these (1, 2, 3, 4) might be helpful if you are interested in this subject. Hope that helps - Inter&anthro (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the information can't be found on Wikipedia, but elsewhere. Your links actually prove notability of the topic. —Kusma (t·c) 08:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I interpreted your original post as if there are more sources covering this subject, there are indeed articles on Wikipedia covering this subject, such as List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues and List of record home attendances of English football clubs. I would be more than willing to change my vote if this article is proven notable, the only problem is that the stuff I provided as well as all but one I believe of the citations provided in the article fall under WP:PRIMARY, so that would be an obstacle in keeping this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are secondary or tertiary sources. Press releases from the clubs in question would be primary sources. —Kusma (t·c) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate list of stats. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per previous discussions Spiderone 12:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous discussions, not seeing anything changing since then, ad WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per several concerns about the article needing cleanup, I have added the ((Cleanup AfD)) template atop the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of Praise[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. (Sources are one news item about an individual incident, one mention in a book, and a lot of links to the church's own website and Ffacebook page.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable organisation. Sources are self-published and have no depth. Ajf773 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable church. It brought Steven Curtis Chapman to Manila (fundraiser for orphans) (STEVEN CURTIS CHAPMAN RETURNS TO MANILA, The Manila Times; Manila [Manila]20 June 2007 [3]; Also this article: (Rise of Filipino fundamentalism triggers new religious tug-of- war, Johnson, Bryan. The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]11 May 1989: A.1. ) which I have just added to the aritcle. Note also that the Church was established by Lester Sumrall. I did not clean the article up, it's got lots of self-sourced PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: books discussing this Church under its old name "Manila Bethel Temple" [4], and its current name [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not a good article and too much reliance on non-RS, but a church with 15000 members ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article could use a lot of cleanup, but at the very least the church is clearly notable: it's been covered by news media (both locally and abroad). As an example, here's a news item from ABS-CBN News. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added additional cites but I think this needs a lot of cleanup --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Simmons (music publisher)[edit]

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

I can't find anything, in the article or on the internet, to convince me Simmons meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The creator is a paid editor and was paid to create this, but that doesn't say he is or is not notable. What do others think? Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete full of grandiose uncited claims. Unless citated then seems like a hoax. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just not seeing RS unconnected with the subject. I sense an almost desperate need to seek validation via the article, whose sources do not treat the subject in insufficient depth or breadth to meet GNG or BIO. I thought WP:PAID's were supposed to comment on talk pages rather than actually edit? Perhaps before seeking payment for creating articles, one should familiarize oneself with inclusion criteria and search for RS on the subject first. One might want to run such an article through AfC to iron out any difficulties before going live in article space. If someone truly meets inclusion criteria, it's likely an experienced editor will write the article for the joy of doing so.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
further rant The edit summary was, "This page has been created to showcase the work that David has done including a musical about Woody Allen and one about Meyer Lanksy." That sort of thing is just something for which Wikipedia is not.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Vanity article - borderline WP:G11. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sapna Choudhary[edit]

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

No-notable Singer fails WP:MUSICBIO none of the sources are reliable. FITINDIA 12:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete online presence, but no RS. Just another person with singing ability, not notable work, so not notable person. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find an article about her in The Hindu which I added to the Wiki article and her suicide attempt is described in The Times of India. There are RS about her, but since she's 21, this article may be TOOSOON. Also, anyone fluent in Hindi should probably take a look at the sources, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: i am fluent in hindi, and nope, the sources dont make her notable. And I dont think we should consider a person as notable if he/she has attempted to commit suicide. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You echo my thoughts, too, Usernamekiran. I think she's a case of TOOSOON. I was also uncomfortable that the RS were mostly about her attempted suicide. Thanks for looking into it more in-depth! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet GNG. Don't see an assertion of significance. There's way too much about her personal life and a dearth of information on anything that would make her notable. This would be more appropriate on a blog or webhost.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:TOOSOON Exemplo347 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moghalpura Railway Workshops[edit]

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

While this company certainly exists, not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches revealed zero on News, Newspapers, Scholar, or JSTOR. A very few trivial mentions on Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 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 Move to draft. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle[edit]

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

Until it is confirmed by Ubisoft or Nintendo, this game is simply a rumour. All these "leaks" may be fake. We'll find out at E3, but until then this game is only a rumour and should not be stated as fact. See WP:RUMOUR. Geesi (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comicbook.com already verified the authenticity of the leak with their Ubisoft sources: [6]. Multiple reliable video game sources say the game the is real and there are enough details to begin an article. Regardless, if the consensus is that there should not be a mainspace article yet, then I have no problem with it being moved to draftspace in the meantime. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft - Despite it being almost certainly true, the game hasn't been officially announced by Ubisoft, so why are we changing the way we normally handle leaks like this? Verifying a leak doesn't make the game official, at least to normal Wikipedia guidelines. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft - It's a rumor, we shouldn't have an article about it yet, but there's also far too much corroborating information to believe this is not going to happen (particularly with E3 weeks away). We can't talk about it in mainspace, but drafting it for now (since there are RSes discussing the rumor) and then moving back to mainspace when a formal announcement happens is fine. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft: per Masem. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft baring an extremely elaborate hoax this will almost certainly be announced soon, likely during E3 in mid June and can be moved back then.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. There is no deadline, so it doesn't need to be an article yet. This rumor is basically confirmed by everyone except the company that we need it confirmed from to actually have an article, which is why none of us (so far) have voted "delete". — Gestrid (talk) 01:30, 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 speedy delete. per WP:G7. So Why 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Petito[edit]

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

Declined A7 speedy because the article contains a number of claims of appearing in multiple commercials for notable companies and having coverage in magazines.

Unfortunately, such coverage cannot be found. A single newspaper mentions him as an example with multiple other child models but that's it as far as I can tell. The TV and movie appearances were only as extras, nothing more. Most likely created by the subject or someone close to them but despite the likely COI the text is not spammy enough to justify G11 deletion, so I'm bringing it here. Regards So Why 09:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you visit the website that is linked in the article you will find all relevant photo's from the catalogues, TVC's etc. If you visit www.harveypetito.com and view the seperate tabs, each contains all of his body of work. In fact, if you follow the links within the wiki article they are all there too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveypetitofan (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC) — Harveypetitofan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete blatant self-promotion littered with spamlinks, no independent third-party sources, absolutely no evidence that he meets our notability criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional article per WP:NOTSPAM. Claims of significance here do not reach the threshold of notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I can see where this is headed. Just delete the page. --Harveypetitofan (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total misuse of EL's and absolute failure of WP:BLP. Ajf773 (talk) 12:46, 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) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Star World (India)[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE states:

... an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.

These programme lists are not historically significant. If they were lists of original programming, then this may be acceptable, but these are largely imported shows and are unencyclopedic. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an ecyclopaedia, NOT a timetable. As OP mentioned, a list of historically significant programs/events/miestones is acceptable as it is encyclopaedic. Another point is, the article has all the three "tenses" former, current, and upcoming programming; so obviosly the article will keep on gaining unencyclopaedic content. Delete. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE and mostly original research. Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but mainly on the grounds we have seventeen sources for over 300 entries. We have these lists, but sourcing is required. Nate • (chatter) 20:04, 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. Sandstein 05:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Dee[edit]

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

I declined the A7 tagging since the article contains some marginal claims of significance, such as appearing in two episodes of Yo Momma, being a significant competitor in a notable radio station's contest and starring in a web series produced by a notable TV network. Erring on the side of caution, I decided to bring it here instead.

However, I cannot find any reliable sources for either the real name or the stage name to back up any of those claims mentioned. As such, he fails WP:NBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 07:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tagged as A7, but I appreciate the abundance of caution. None of the claims made demonstrate why the subject should be in an encyclopedia, and a clear fail of all of our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:48, 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. Sandstein 05:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economic process of cap and trade[edit]

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

A merger discussion for this established a consensus to merge to Emissions trading, but reviewing the article it seems to be entirely written as an essay - "let us suppose a situation" "For simplicity we will assume" - I'm not sure any of this content is suitable to merge as the entire article discusses a single hypothetical example and is not written in encyclopedic language. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to be gained by merging this anywhere. bd2412 T 16:21, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avion Films[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD. In 2007, was PROD'd as non notable, and de-PROD'd by an IP who disagreed.

In my estimation, this company doesn't pass WP:GNG. Two refs are from Boards Mag, a defunct trade magazine that didn't even publish for a full year. The "honors" from the Clio Awards are minor, Bronze-level mentions along with a number of others. (see here) IMHO they confer no notability.

A Google search shows most Google hits are for a Greek production company with the same name, but that company doesn't seem notable either. The GHits for both are mostly name-drops in release info for films/work they contributed to, but no in-depth coverage of either iteration of Avion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to keep this entry. The company is defunct, and no reasons are apparent in the stub of an article as to why the company is notable. There aren't even any specifics about their work, except an unsourced claim that once they may have been noticed by the Clio Awards for something. Scriblerian1 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:06, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garfish Restaurants[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. the gnews hits are mainly about stories on how it employs foreign workers. the awards including from local newspaper hardly establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage, doesn't pass WP:CORP. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The awards listed and mentioned elsewhere are not notable in themselves and I am seeing nothing to indicate more than a company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:49, 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 speedy delete. article withdrawn by contributor DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Webberley[edit]

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

I wanted this to be properly discussed rather than sitting there forever with a notability tag. There's work to be done in terms of its tone, and the creator has declared that they have been paid to create this. None of that reflects on Webberley's notability one way or the other though. I didn't find that the sources or information added up to Webberley meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO and a WP:BEFORE didn't convince me otherwise. Interested to see what others think. Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are not persuasive: the subject is mentioned as "a GP in Wales" in The Guardian article; the UK parliament Transgender Equality report does not list her as a witness or provider of written evidence so can serve as a reference to the thematic area but not her biography; an author page serves a functional purpose for the Huffington Post but does not in itself demonstrate encyclopaedic notability; nor do a conference listing or a Youtube link. Highbeam shows the subject has been quoted in various popular medicine stories in Mirror Group newspapers and her Youtube uploads show various TV appearances, but I don't think there is enough to demonstrate notability in her field or, at a stretch given the media quotes, WP:CELEBRITY. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs proper formating, rewording, and evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. obvious promotion. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Thank you, nom. --Lockley (talk) 05:26, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ETEBAC5[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prior AfD closed due to 0 comments. Topic fails WP:GNG. No sources. Nothing. The last sentence ends in ... and seems unfinished. This is worse than a draft. Should have been speedied. Can we delete this, please? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has been around for 12 years and shows no sign of being improved or acquiring any sources. As it stands, it appears to fail WP:GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree the article is worse than a draft. The topic is discussed in passing at Electronic Banking Internet Communication Standard which is more than sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the other two. This article is not notable, already discussed, and not only unhelpful to all those who come across it but also actively hurts Wikipedia. This is essentially a draft that somehow got published and never deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williambellwisdo (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:45, 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. czar 06:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Martin (author)[edit]

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

Self-promotional Primary sources and listings for his book do not add up to notability for this BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet NAUTHOR or GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk)
Note on closure: If major reviews are found for his Coal Wars book, might be worth redirecting there. Cursory search only showed Kirkus and PW reviews, which are weak for notability (they review everything). czar 06:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Selangor. (non-admin closure) f e minist 11:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMK USJ 4[edit]

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

All article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Can be redirected to List of schools in Selangor. QianCheng_虔诚 15:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following related article also fails to the criteria above:

QianCheng_虔诚 15:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. QianCheng_虔诚 15:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. QianCheng_虔诚 15:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all three. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. The Wikipedia stand-alone articles requires reliable references and wide coverage to justify their notability. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment expanding on my delete vote: named in a way that suggests it's not notable, search results are mostly trivial [7] or about students [8]; WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES kerfuffle seems to imply this type of article is generally removed. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of schools in Selangor. I normally give pretty wide berth for secondary schools, and there may be something here later, but as they currently stand, they have issues beyond just being a one line stub: Smartkidz lists, information about being a scout troop, etc. Redirecting at this point would be best, and if someone can provide sources to demonstrate the likelihood of notability, they can recreate and build from the history of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hrach Sergeyevich Aghabekyan[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. His football team may be notable even though the league they play in is not recognised as being a Fully professional leagues and notability is not inherited. A search on the web turned up nothing very much to support notability. Domdeparis (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom that he fails GNG/BIO. Just a person doing a job in some obscure corner of the sport world. Not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Football administrators are considered non-notable unless they can satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG being met Spiderone 07:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 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 delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RajKumar[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, writer and film producer. The sources provided whilst extensive are not about him also the article claims the film Romeo-N-Bullet was co-produced and written by RajKumar but this source published by boxofficeindia.com failed to support any claim. No indication of passing WP:NBIO and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, can't find significant coverage online in WP:RS, and nothing to confirm the claims made. It's tricky, as there are a few Indian filmmakers by this name: see Rajkumar. Uncle Roy (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor appearances on TV and films. Romeo-N-Bullet was co-produced by his film but the film credits don't show him as the producer. No RS covers him significantly. Fails WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:31, 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 Delete. There is a clear consensus below that is is WP:TOOSOON for an article on this film that that is should be deleted until sufficient sources exist. This is qwithout prejudice against moving a copy to draft or userspace should someone ask for it or recreating it as an article once it has been released and the sources required by WP:NFILM exist and can be added. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Channa Mereya (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Not-yet-released, no reliable sources. Deprodded by article creator. No evidence that the film meets WP:NFILM or general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Maybe it will be notable when it is released. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete or send to draft coverage not sufficient in terms of depth or breadth to meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NFILM. WP:TOOSOON.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Shoes Unno[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 22:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pro wrestling referee with no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been a ref in main events for njpw wcw nwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.120.12 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what notability criteria that meets? I'm not seeing any. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've heard of this referee, which is more than I can say for most. Unfortunately that's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete The keep argument is insufficient, as is the sourcing. Does not meet WP:NDlohcierekim (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TripleA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In the past, I have nominated many article for deletion on the grounds that they failed establish the notability of the topic by citing coverage in reliable secondary sources. None have been as bad as this article: It cites coverage from very unreliable sources! Namely, LisiSoft, modDB, Chip.eu (not to be confused by chip.de), soft-files.com, freewaregenius.com, the once-respected Download.com, and, worst of all, BrotherSoft! Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! This article was deleted TWICE before? I did not know that. Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4? —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I'll second the speedy delite, having been deleted before. Having a look at the game, it seems legit, and seems to have some vague discussion, but the references are fairly soft, just the odd web site. No reviews for it I could see. Most of the references on the page are web sites, and half the links don't work! Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A game with a long history as successful freeware and open source game. that it was deleted before and keeps popping up is not a reason for deletion but a reason for keeping and that the deletions were maybe over-eager. Also, it would be great if instead of deletion a search for sources would be conducted. I found instantly a chip.de source. Shaddim (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Edit: an even stronger source, long print-media (with editorial overview) review[reply]
Weak Keep. While the number of unique downloads is not listed with the Sourceforge information, I feel that a game with over 1 million downloads certainly could fall into the noteworthy category. While I agree with the above comment that many of the sources "are soft", as the game is freeware I would tend to expect that. Ceronomus (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TripleA has a constant online community of gamers. It is among not so many games in List_of_open-source_video_games#Open_engine_and_free_content. All games in this category have Wikipedia articles, although not all of them are as popular as TripleA is. Regarding "None have been as bad as this article", I'm sorry to hear that, maybe the article can be improved, but I believe the game is certainly worth an article. It is fairly popular and is in the category of open source software. We should not assume that all open source software is non-notable just because they don't have a company to fund marketing and to improve visibility. The game is in the official Ubuntu repositories. I have added external links with reviews, including reviews from Cnet, Macworld, Chip, Ghacks. Even disregarding the current success, games/software should be considered notable also for historical value. TripleA is maintained right now (by a team of 3), and has been maintained (and played) for the past 15 years.Dl.goe (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article as written suffers from a large number of low-quality references, probably added to survive the AfD process. There is an 82-page dissertation cited as a reference; the rest appear to be references to promotional materials or game reviews. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now mostly addressed in the latest version. Shaddim (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are even more low-quality references, which makes it worse IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific ? I tried to filter out non-relevant ones and added only the one which help to understand the reach and impact the game achieved as Freeware game in the freeware game download scene, e.g. by adding for instance that is was included in digital distributor Desura Shaddim (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first looked at the article, there were 18 references in the reflist. Now, there are 29, including a few (such as a Gentoo package) which are egregiously trivial in nature. Note WP:OVERCITE Power~enwiki (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the pure number of citations directly leads to overcitation: sometimes you have to back up facts more fine grained. And I disagree that the inclusion of Linux distribution's integration is "trivial". Quite the opposite, linux distributions have hight standards on content review and license review for their content, therefore their inclusion has weight. Shaddim (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with others that the game is certainly worth an article as a successful game with a long history, and that the difficulty with finding reliable sources to show notability is because it is freeware. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the many references posted in desperate attempt to save the article only games4mac.de and linux-user.de look like reliable sources with broad enough coverage. I also found half page short article about this game in Linux Format magazine (issue 151, December 2011, p. 72). This is enough to prove notability of this game. For me, sole reason for delete is lack of Amiga port... Pavlor (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"lack of amiga port" ;) Shaddim (talk) 10:33, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad A. Quayum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mohammad Quayum

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

Questionable notability. Also, have doubt about the cited references. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep = assuming it's all true, he has quite the c.v., although I'd love to see better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was nominated for deletion in 2012, when the article title did not include a middle initial. The result of that discussion was keep. Since then, the list of potential references under external links has been beefed up, and now includes reviews of his work in The Statesman, Esquire, The Book Review, Humanities Diliman, and The Daily Star, to name a few. The external links should be mined for content and turned into references, but the nom's unspecified "doubt about the cited references" is not a sufficient argument for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 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. Given that there have been no opposing comments post the notes on improvement, I've closed this as tending towards keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lika Ceni[edit]

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.visit-montenegro.com/main-cities/ulcinj/ulcinj-history/

link to establish notibility. please do not delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Likacen (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the subject mentioned in several Montenegro travel books as Lika Celi, but always as a passing reference to him and Ali Hodža, the Karamindžoja brothers, and sometimes Uluč Alija. I am not finding any detailed coverage of any of them, but if it is in Cyrilic, I doubt my search would turn it up. Agricolae (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this - [9] which is not a guidebook. Various Cyrillic, Turkish (part of the Ottoman empire back then), and other language sources - with use of possible alternative spellings is probably required for a serious search.Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some information from a couple of the travel guides so there are at least some references to satisfy verifiability and notability. I don't really like relying on travel guides as historical sources, but given that other sources are likely not available in English and, in the spirit of expanding world coverage, I'm leaning toward keep in the hopes that future editors with more facility in the appropriate languages can expand this. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following improvement. May be a mythical figure - but he is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://montenegrina.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Milenko-Ratkovic-Gusarska-epopeja.pdf; another link to establish notibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likacen (talk • contribs) 06:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 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 Redirect to Jeanne Sagan. There is a clear consensus that this content should not be a separate article. But there is not a clear consensus that a redirect is harmful so I am creating one on the basis that "redirects are cheap". The history is intact to enable a selective merge but there is no consensus for that below and if ity is desired it should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing Rubicon[edit]

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

The article, created by a SPA, completely fails to meet WP:BAND requirements. The sources in the article are mostly promotional items, not serious coverage. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge or redirect - Jeanne Sagan is a notable musician who was part of the band. Therefore, this article should either be kept, merged or redirected to Sagan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. The article is not about Ms. Sagan, who barely meets WP:BIO standards, and her belated involvement is strictly in a supportive level as a back-up vocalist and bassist. Wefihe (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Wefihe:, if the article for Jeanne Sagan gets deleted, then that is a different story. However, that is the very best target that we have at this time, similar to the manner in which Lody Kong redirected to Zyon Cavalera. According to Crossing Rubicon and her own article, Sagan is as permanent as permanent is. Also, would you be so kind to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wefihe: If you are implying that the involvement of Jeanne Sagan is minor, and therefore diminishes the relevance of the article, I would beg to differ. Jeanne Sagan is married to the singer of the band and is writing the music along with the other members of the band. To suggest that she is simply a bassist and backup singer quite trivializes her role in the band and is not quite accurate. Dan Hello Kitty McCarthy (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Crossing Rubicon released their album with Pavement music which has done business since 1997 and has history with bands such as Soil and Crowbar, both of which are large bands which have pages here on Wikipedia. "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Members of the band also run a promotional company which helps Connecticut bands get shows (Anarchy Promotions), and also partake in podcasts about the Connecticut metal scene featuring front-men of 4 different Connecticut bands (The League of Extraordinary Front-Men). This is in addition to the band featuring Jeanne Sagan, who was in All That Remains and temporarily toured with Acacia Strain. While I agree that it is not the most ideal candidate, I don't believe it is merit-less or without value to the Wiki. Dan Hello Kitty McCarthy (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you just confirmed that this group does not meet WP:BAND requirements? And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't help me understand the Wiki any better and just feels as though you are rubbing it in my face when I'm just trying to keep a page I spent my time building. I tried to give some reasons in addition to what is already on the Wiki page. I don't understand the problem any better from your question. Your response feels more condescending than educational, I'm still learning. Dan Hello Kitty McCarthy (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in responding. I would recommend reading WP:BAND (just click the link) to see what is required for a musical group to be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. As one of the participants in this discussion noted, there are 12 different aspects where a band could be judged notable for inclusion on this website. Unfortunately, this group does not meet any of them. I can understand your frustration over the possibility of seeing this article erased, but at the same time its continued presence goes against what is spelled out in WP:BAND. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails all 12 of the critieria in the WP:BAND rules. I have no objections redirecting this to the Jeanne Sagan article, but there is no reason for this obscure group to have its own encyclopedia article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nominator. They're not a notable band. 95.215.44.97 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Channing[edit]

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

Only substantial claim to notability is his relationship with Ian Thorpe, but that isn't really enough to pass WP:GNG. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable as a model yet, or notable outside being Thorpe's boyfriend. Also, sources say he turned 27 in September, so the birth info is wrong anyway. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note attempted removal of deletion tag from article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Ian Thorpe in lieu of deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Ian Thorpe as it's a plausible search term. Delete (after further thought) Not notable in his own right - searches turn up a number of hits but they're all references to his relationship with Thorpe, or else they're social media or run-of-the-mill directory entries and so on related to his work as a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiltonks (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ian Thorpe. Not notable in own right but is a likely search term. Current material is sufficient encyclopedic so salvage. Aoziwe (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oppose redirect of a BLP to another BLP. They are not married and have been dating for less than a year. In addition to the standard concerns I have over a BLP redirecting to a BLP: the subject of the redirect having no control over the actions that lead to the content of the article, the young relationship weighs strong. If they break up, having a redirect of a biography of a living person redirecting to his ex-boyfriend would be a major issue, and I wouldn't hold my breath on someone remembering to take this to RfD if the time comes. If they were married or in a long-term relationship, I'd be more open to redirecting, but at this time I can't get behind it, and he is already mentioned in the Thorpe briefly so there is nothing to merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point TonyBallioni. I'd not considered the privacy angle. He's just an ordinary guy who happens to be dating a celebrity so on reflection I agree with you - Delete. Neiltonks (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Neiltonks: you might want to strike your redirect !vote above to make it clear you support deleting. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TonyBallioni. There's no case for notability apart from gossip columns on his personal relationships, which should not justify even a redirect here. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:32, 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 the creator's request. Hut 8.5 20:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophical Evolution of Wing Chun[edit]

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

Essay appears to be pure original research written in essay form that is unsalvageable. Basically the definition of WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is a essay. Seems unsalvageable. Most likely unsuitable for merging. Also Original Research. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 04:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOR --Dps04 (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete For the above reasons.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original creator has removed all content and asked for deletion, so I'm putting up the db-author tag if no one else objects. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 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.