< 26 May	28 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. Not much discussion here, so I'll call this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government Post Graduate College (Chishtian)

[edit]

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

A local college with no information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulaimandaud (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed the formatting of this nomination. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:45, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inverifiable, run of the mill, secondary school for boys in a remote valley. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Jewel

[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. The politiken link is a whats on kind of directory. Vg is a tabloid and not rs Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unclear why the redirect was reversed. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore redirect per the above. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she passes the general notability guidelines having been extensively covered by Danish and Norwegian newspapers Politiken [1], Verdens Gang (VG)[2], and AOK[3]. Dismissing VG because of its tabloid size format is inappropriate given that it is probably the most popular newspaper in Norway. Dismissing the politiken article because it's about her club opening is also inappropriate. It is not merely a "what's on" listing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the sun and the daily mail are the two most popular papers in the uk so thats a silly argument and its a tabloid still. Aok is a listing mag and its an interview which means its not an rs, ymmv but seriously? Gossip papers and primary sources as rs for a blp? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't present any evidence on Politiken (a broadsheet) and VG's reputation beyond format size. Got it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tabloid clearly means the style of paper not size. If I accepted politiken its only 1 of the necessary 2 sources, don't be a tool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have not presented any evidence on its reputation beyond declaring it to be a tabloid. Here are other articles from the Birmingham Post [4] and the Copenhagen Post [5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the coverage above is either trivial or tabloid like, such as about participating in a stunt involving "body shots". Something like this does not make an individual wiki notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No comments on the draft, so not deleting that Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Newton (dentist)

[edit]

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

Also DELETE the draft at User:AllyShrimp/Dr Tony Newton

Created by a single purpose account. Subject is only mildly notable, and in my opinion not enough to pass WP:GNG plenty of time given to establish notability has passed. Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything here to establish notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I'm sure Mr. Newton is a good and worthy dentist, there's no sign of notability. --Lockley (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail gng Chetsford (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black art

[edit]

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

~~Delete~~: Fails the conditions of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Of the 20 terms listed on the page only one - Black art (theatre) - has the words "Black art" in it. However, it is a redirect to Glossary of magic (illusion)#B. This discussion was first listed on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion page in section "Should this disambiguation page be deleted?" on 22 May 2017. No response has been given. Mitchumch (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the point is that those are all things that are called black arts. Therefore someone searching for them might search that term looking for one of those items. It doesn't need to be the only or main name. LadyofShalott 04:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @LadyofShalott: According to WP:CONCEPTDAB which states, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page."

Disambiguation pages are only for articles with the same or nearly the same titles, not concepts. Mitchumch (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this should become an article, then AfD is hardly the way to go. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I am following the guidelines stated at Wikipedia:Disambiguation in section "Deletion" which states, "Although disambiguation pages are not articles, a disambiguation page may be listed at Articles for deletion to discuss whether the disambiguation page should be deleted."

I never stated that I think this page should become an article. Please do not mistake the excerpt above from Wikipedia:CONCEPTDAB as a reflection of my personal opinion. I am only stating what this page is not - a disambiguation page. If someone here chooses to make it an article page, then I have no objections. But, that person is not me. Mitchumch (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ there's no way the article can survive as a non-disambiguation page (it refers currently to black magic, criminal behaviors, African art, and a few extra nonsense things like Printing), and it doesn't work as a disambiguation page either. Possibly a speedy candidate as WP:G3 . Power~enwiki (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've just added Lee Perry's record label. With the theatre and the movement, there are now three topics with this name, or close enough to it, plus some of the others could be shown to be known as 'black art' I'm sure. It's trivially easy to find sources for this term equating to black magic, African-American art, espionage, etc. --Michig (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and one of the major pieces of the movement is specifically named Black Art. I have added that to the list. LadyofShalott 14:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been sufficiently expanded, with the record label, theatrical term, artwork by Amiri Baraka, and redirect to African-American art. I'm not convinced by the very long list of everything that might be called the black arts, but that can be debated later. I'm a bit surprised that Wikipedia has no article on Rollo Ahmed (an associate of Dennis Wheatley) who wrote a book called The Black Art[6][7], which could be another entry on the list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Colapeninsula: @LadyofShalott: I think there is a separate issue here. Both of you don't appear to be aware of Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Please read WP:CONCEPTDAB for the "Broad-concept articles" section of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. There has to be, at the very least, an existing article with the term "Black art" in the title for it to be listed on the disambiguation page. Even then "Don't include every article containing the title" according to the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Mitchumch (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the expansion doesn't actually improve the article. It's still a disambiguation page with multiple problems and no plausible single redirect target. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After the expansion this dab page contains entries for at least three topics that are unequivocally and straightforwardly known as "Black art". Any potential issues with the page should be addressed via editing. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page is now in good enough shape that I strike my previous delete vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I second Power~enwiki new position. I strike my previous delete vote on the condition that new violations of WP:NAMELIST and WP:DABRELATED do not reappear. Mitchumch (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you withdrawing your nomination then? LadyofShalott 03:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LadyofShalott: So long as that page adheres to Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Mitchumch (talk) 04:19, 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) 09:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-il

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unreliable self-published sources Snowflake91 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources were only soical media, blog posts that fails GNG and BIO overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:CREATIVE. Could consider merging to webtoon, which could have a list of Korean webtoons and their authors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mount Everest summiters by number of times to the summit up to 2015

[edit]

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

Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK of List of Mount Everest summiters by number of times to the summit. This is as both lists are on the same subject but one is only up to 2015. This article should be redirected/merged to List of Mount Everest summiters by number of times to the summit per the above reason. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In your redirect attempt you said there was no reason given. However, a reason was stated in the introduction. Now you are stating its redundant, however, the list is different due to changes with time. This is like saying history is redundant because its in the past! I can't say I object to a redirect on the basis that the 2015 earthquake and two years is premature or two years is too minor a difference. I wish you had said that in the redirect, I assumed you had not even read it and now its on the block!! Fotaun (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see what you brought it to Afd: the redirect was rolled back. Yeah, this is odd. Fotaun claims such a split off is necessary because "Everest was moved slightly by the Earthquake." But even the claim of the Hillary Step being destroyed is contested at this point, and we're going to create a new list because an earthquake may have moved the mountain a few inches? ~~Redirect~~ Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well there is another reason, 2015 provided a logical break-point to preserve climbing record history. The other list is quite hard to maintain with upwards of 600 summits per year. The photographic evidence of the hillary step changes means its inevitable that the climbing route changed, this marks the end of that Everest. Maybe its to soon and it should be a redirect, but the time is coming when this is more meaningful as the other list diverges. Fotaun (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to userspace - this seems to be a personal project. The count doesn't restart because of an inch movement. There are much larger variables involved in a summit of Everest. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- True its not even really a valid redirect term. Change !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well I can verify that its not a personal project. Fotaun (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, per your first comment above, see WP:CRYSTAL. In the meantime are you agreeing that it's premature at the very least and your previous roll back of the nominator's redirect was in error? If so, and you're ready to redirect, yourself, now, we can end this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want a redirect based on what you have said here, that's fine with me. I objected to the first re-direct in part because I had tried to explain my rationale for the page in the introduction (it said "why up to 2015" though it stated reasons for that year in the introduction). What I am seeing is that you disagree with those reasons, which I can respect. I think you can see its a really different issue from my perspective if you want a redirect because there was no reason given for the page, which is not really accurate, versus disagreeing with my reasons for making the page. Cheers Fotaun (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork, there's no reason to merge this back into the main article. The title seems far too specific to justify a redirect Power~enwiki (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't see any value in a merge or redirect. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork/personal project per most of the above. To say that an earthquake "marks the end of that Everest" sounds more than a bit silly - people are still climbing a mountain called Everest, and while I understand it's become easier to do so over history for any number of reasons, the result of an earthquake is unlikely to stop people doing it or suddenly make more people do it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its supposed to be a history article, that quote is a euphemism which your taking literally. Fotaun (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's a history article. The article referred to earlier (which doesn't put an arbitrary year into the criteria) is likewise a history article and covers the more logical group of "everyone who's climbed the mountain", rather than the arbitrarily-defined "everyone who climbed the mountain until this point I chose". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BigHaz: That is why I redirected the article in the first place (the list is arbitrary). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agreed with you. Given that the author disagrees, I felt it was important to present my reasoning there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is total trivial cruft. Why is this even being discussed? Bearian (talk) 22:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Dalby

[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and fails WP:SPIP. Article contains no sources, and looks professionally written by a paid source (Jane grierson). Also in breach of WP:COI as it has recently been edited by Gramjames who the article is about, therefore WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COI may also apply. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really, the only section within the article is about his career, and nothing more? Yeah, not notable at all. --Z L Media 23:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: That the creator has been blocked for sock-puppeteering (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gramjames). Therefore this may now qualify for speedy delete under WP:G5 criteria. Wes Wolf ^Talk 16:13, 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. Sandstein 10:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Swing Orchestra

[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:GROUP,, WP:NMUSIC, and fails WP:SPIP. Article contains no sources, and looks professionally written by a paid source. Also in breach of WP:COI as it was created by Gramjames who is the creator of the orchestra, therefore WP:NOTPROMO may also apply. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That the creator has been blocked for sock-puppeteering (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gramjames). Therefore this may now qualify for speedy delete under WP:G5 criteria. Wes Wolf ^Talk 16:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and a quick Google search turns up none. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:53, 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. Sandstein 10:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Knight's Cross recipients 6th SS Gebirgs Division Nord

[edit]

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

An unnecessary cross-categorisation created when the awarding of the Knight's Cross was accepted on Wiki as a presumption of notability. Since then, the community consensus has evolved and the awarding of the Knight's Cross no longer carries such a presumption; please see the close at Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Lists of similar scope have been recently deleted at AfD, such as:

In addition, I'm nominating similar articles created in the same timeframe. The rationale above is equally applicable to these lists:

List of Knight's Cross recipients 23rd SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nederland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 7th SS Volunteer Gebirgs Division Prinz Eugen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients of the SS Heavy Panzer Battalions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. We should be consistent.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW. None of these are likely to pass our standards for lists. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the list by unit seems to be more meaningful than by first letter(s) of surname. Peter James (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the alphabetical lists serve as the target pages for the redirects. I don't think that wikipedia needs both. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects can go to wherever the names are listed. Peter James (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Nickolich

[edit]

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

This author and his works were not covered anywhere except in self-published, primary sources, thus failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. The article also mentions the author being a national skydiving champion, but I can't find any reliable sources to verify such a claim. Dps04 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed on both counts. An article with this title was also deleted in March 2017.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on how to submit documentation that support the legitimacy of the title "Victor Nickolich" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordatlantic (talk • contribs)

Nordatlantic please see WP:REFSTART. As things stand this article is an unreferenced biography of a living person which cannot remain. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordatlantic, My starting places for sources - and generally a good indicator of whether there are significant sources to establish general notability are the news · newspapers · books · HighBeam · NYT · WP reference links from the ((Find sources)) links above. I am not finding anything other than the book The Lynx itself from these queries - so nothing that can be used as a source there. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON as an WP:AUTHOR. I am not finding anything other than the book, which would need two independent reviews from sources like the New York Times, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson, there is little to no information on the internet for personal events that occurred around 1977. However, I have a number of declassified documents that were exchanged between the U.S. Department of State, The American Embassy in Mexico City, and the American Interest Mission in Havana from December 1977 that can provide a source of information about Victor Nickolich's defection from the Cuban National Skydiving Team at the American Embassy in Mexico D.F. , and of his subsequent extraction to the United States. I also have personal references about the authorship of "The Lynx", which include Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander (NATO) during the Obama administration, and John Fenzel, Former Army special forces colonel and author. I also have an article that references Victor Nickolich in Parachutist Magazine about Victor's participation as a member of the Cuban National team in the Pan American Skydiving Games in Peru in 1975. How can I introduce these sources in the article?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordatlantic (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordatlantic, I checked newspapers.com, and I got two hits since 1975, both of them are Letters to the editor signed by a Victor Nickolich. It's a subscription service, but you may be able to see the results page here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyan Roze

[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. 1 interview from a contributor to Huffpost is far from adequate to prove notability Domdeparis (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 04:30, 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 delete. While the keep votes presented some good arguments, they were not enough to sway those participating in the discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeAnna Johnson

[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria. Whilst there are a lot of websites referenced, they comprise at most local coverage, a selection of fan sites, own website etc. I can find no evidence of significant coverage in third party reliable sources --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a fan page for an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- don't think the Wikipedia page is a fan page but a concise information page. DeAnna has an extensive unofficial fan site at http://CoversGirl.com which archives all her videos, audio, and photoshoots. And she has a popular discussion forum at http://idolforums.com/index.php?showtopic=721780. Maybe these should be added as External links? JefferShip (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I didn't create this page, but ran across it and spent time filling out the details as requested on the banner. (1) I can find more than local coverage of the basketball, volleyball, and softball Georgia state championships that Johnson was involved in but they may not mention her name to prove that she was part of the championship teams. Only the local papers usually do that, as is well understood. (2) There are lots of equal or lesser contestants from The Voice who have their own Wikipedia page but Johnson is much more notable in terms of providing a role model for the young citizens of Georgia. Both the Georgia Senate and House wrote resolutions recognizing Johnson's achievements in entertainment and pageantry and a Wikipedia page provides an easily found record of this. (3) I am fascinated by individuals that excel at competitions with such high visibility and it is rare to find ones that do it across areas -- sports, singing, & pageantry. I spent only a few hours working on this page and am sure others will contribute as well.JefferShip (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for independent sources, did not find any. While her previously mentioned diversity of accomplishments is impressive, she does not appear to have any third party notability, nor does she meet any of the criteria for presuming notability. She fails WP:NSPORT. While she was Miss Georgia USA, the majority of other Miss [State] winners did not have Wikipedia pages, so I assume she is not notable on that front. Most of the other members of season 8 of the voice do not have wikipedia pages either. The combination of three non-notable things does not make her notable, nor does the fact that the Georgia senate wrote a 10 line recommendation for her. -William (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Has notability for music according to guidelines WP:MUSIC -- two entries in the Billboard Hot Christian Songs chart, at #5 and #14 as cited on page. JefferShip (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the coverage seems to be substantial and independent enough to go past the WP:N. Local coverage does not stop notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 09:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All the recent pageant titleholder AFDs over the past year would suggest otherwise, that local coverage alone is not enough to establish notability. I've lost count of how many similar articles have been deleted because there was not significant coverage outside local papers. And we're not talking local community papers (as in the sourcing here) either, I'm talking about arguments being made that papers like the Kansas City Star are too local to establish notability for a Miss Missouri USA titleholder. The Baxley News Banner and fan sites don't cut it. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I do work in probability & statistics and find that this combination of beauty and talent is quite rare. What are the odds of one person being in the top ranks of a singing competition, a beauty competition, and capturing state titles in each of the seasonal team sports? The Voice competition is remarkable in that her looks didn't enter in getting a four-chair turn. Yet complementarily, the Miss USA competition did not feature a talent portion. Statistically these are considered independent orthogonal factors and so the odds need to be multiplied leading to heightened notability. That's just math to see that performance talent and beauty need to add. Plus, I need to challenge the fact that Season 8 contestants aren't represented in Wikipedia. When I checked the Season 8 Voice page, I counted 6 of the Top 9 contestants as having links. Including DeAnna, there are Sawyer Fredericks, Korrine Hawthorne, Kimberley Nichole, Meghan Linsey, and Joshua Davis. DeAnna was in the Top 9. Precedent has been set and that is why I added all that info to her page -- I know it doesn't matter to the decision but I wouldn't have wasted my time if I didn't think that DeAnna's last 4 years in continuous public spotlight didn't merit notability. BTW, whoever created the page initially got her middle name wrong, and that's what got me going on this path in the first place! So many people ask about DeAnna's age and her height that her Wikipedia entry will be accessed for that alone. There are examples of Voice contestants that have referred to her persistence as motivating them to try out. That supports the position that she is a role model and a muse to lots of people worldwide.JefferShip (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:N guidelines: Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. ... If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Objectively, DeAnna has had continuous public exposure over the years 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 in separate events and may likely continue this high-profile pattern.JefferShip (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning a state-level beauty pageant is not sufficient for notability, and neither is being an unsuccessful contestant on The Voice. Combining them doesn't help. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- arbitrariness - pointed out by others that many "unsuccessful" Voice singers have pages, such as Naia Kete and Pip (musician) not even finishing in the top 10, yet are not marked for deletion. I don't think there is an objective criteria that someone can apply when helping to fill out an entry. The more notable things that a candidate does, like in DeAnna's case, the more time is wasted if she does get deleted. That's what's called a perverse incentive according to the Wikipedia entry. JefferShip (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. being less than notable in three different fields adds up to less than notable. Having an actual national award in any one of them is what would make someone notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- National award like an Emmy? She has two national high school championships in team sports as cited on her page (you did ask for an actual national award). Otherwise requiring a national award seems too narrow and restrictive a guideline. JefferShip (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hannah Mitchell. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Mitchell Foundation

[edit]

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

From my research I can see that the Hannah Mitchell Foundation is a real initiative (it does not appear to be legal entity), I can't see why it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Although it has issued policy ideas in the past, none of them seem to have reached any wider impact. At least, not that I can see. In many ways, it looks more like a blog than a think-tank. I think it is largely a vehicle for the policy ideas of Paul Salevson. In summary, I nominate this page for deletion due to its lack of notability. Seaweed (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not come anywhere close to meeting WP:ORGCRITE. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hannah Mitchell, which in fact already has most of what we need. --Lockley (talk) 05:30, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Brotman

[edit]

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

Biography of a writer, whose only apparent claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that he existed. This is referenced almost entirely to unreliable sources like a geni.com genealogy and a GoodReads profile -- and the only other claim of notability present, that he served as secretary of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, is not a claim of notability that would exempt a person from having to be sourced properly either. While that claim is technically sourced to a file in the National Archives of the United Kingdom, it's not a file of press clippings about him but a file of his own correspondence -- so that's not a source that can bolster notability either in the absence of any reliable source coverage about him in media. Simply put, there's nothing here -- neither in the substance nor the sourcing -- that would make him eligible for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree lack of notability.Seaweed (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A couple of quick searches yields no trace of notability. --Lockley (talk) 23:47, 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) 09:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.nds

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem even like a reasonable search term to be redirected. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added references. I'd say to Merge/Redirect but the problem is that it is a PC file so I feel to redirect it to Nintendo DS would not be correct unless someone else has a suggestion? The file format is Notable considering the references from PC World and International Business Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles do not provide significant coverage on the file format. The focus of those articles is Nintendo DS emulation. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a "PC file"? It looks to me like it's a file format for DS ROMs generally, for emulation on any platform that is capable of emulating a DS. — Smjg (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of any real reliable source about it makes it unnotable; the "refs" mentioned above only mention DS emulation as a whole, not the specific format. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails the GNG - sourcing above does not help. Even with sourcing, I doubt this would ever really have standalone notability. It entirely hinges on the DS Hardware and/or its emulation. It'd probably be more likely to be mentioned in an article like that before it would have its own. But we're not even there yet. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent notability. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching gives no reliable sources to establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Bhayankara Kamukan

[edit]

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

Probably shelved movie. Was supposed to start production in March 2017. It was then moved to September. As principal photography has not yet commenced, the article fails WP:NFILM. Can be recreated when filming starts, but till then its WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Jupitus Smart 15:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A stub. Longevitydude (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree too early for article.Seaweed (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that filming has begun. A WP:TOOSOON case here. Fails WP:NFILM. By the way Longevitydude articles are not deleted merely for being a stub. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No but it does say something about the encyclopedic value when not a lot can be said about a topic. Longevitydude (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Seaton

[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, whose only evident claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that she won a literary award which is not unequivocally notable enough to make its winners notable just for the fact of winning it. The only references present here at all, further, are primary sources and a Q&A interview on a blog, which are not sources that can assist notability -- there's no evidence being shown at all that she's been the subject of media coverage in reliable sources. (Even the award win is referenced to the award's own primary source website about itself -- but for an award to be considered notable enough to hand its winners an AUTHOR pass, that award has to be one for which media pay attention to the award as news, not one whose own self-published website represents the only verification.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this -- but a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and nothing here properly demonstrates that Seaton clears our notability standard for writers. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has coverage from Huffington Post and the New York Times. I don't she how she would not meet WP: CREATIVE. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: she has also been reviewed in http://www.lambdaliterary.org, in http://www.3ammagazine.com/ and in https://nightowl.owu.edu/ - and discussed in monographs. For a poet, she's a bloody rock star. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post is not a reliable source. It can be used as a convenience link if and when it's aggregating wire service content from, say, Reuters or the Associated Press — but not if it's the originator of the content. And the only evidence I'm seeing of New York Times coverage in a Google search is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a "today's events" calendar — I'm seeing zero evidence that she's been the subject of any substantive coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement about the Huffington Post is not supported by consensus, man. Original Huffington Post content is perfectly good for generating Notability; what people have questioned is possible bias in some of its articles (particularly opinion pieces), which has nothing to do with WP:N. The New York Times piece may be an event announcement, but the Miami Times and Miami Herald coverage is more substantive. For a poet, this definitely meets WP:N.Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original content on The Huffington Post is not reportage, but blogging whose reliability or unreliability is not measurable by any normal journalistic standards. It's acceptable to use HuffPo when the content in question is an aggregation of work originating from another source, such as wire service articles from the AP — because the citation in that instance is to the AP, and HuffPo is just a convenience link to a copy of it — but not when the content is originating from a HuffPo blogger. And no, I'm not wrong about this; it's been discussed extensively in the past at the reliable sources noticeboard. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's funny that you say that, because I was just looking at the noticeboard, and the summary I gave above reflects the discussion I read much more accurately than your comment of Huffington Post as an aggregator. Once again, we are talking about notability here, not accuracy of content.

Her work has been reviewed in http://www.lambdaliterary.org, in http://www.3ammagazine.com/ and in https://nightowl.owu.edu/ and in monographs - and her poems have appeared in many, many major literary periodicals and magazines. Can't you admit that you were wrong, just this one time? :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete One event. As for the Huffington post, it should be noted that wikipedia is not news. Longevitydude (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but a full write-up in Huffington Post is evidence of WP:N, which is what is in question.Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's your opinion about the not news argument. The fact is either way this is still one event. Longevitydude (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I won't cast a !vote, at least for now, but it does seem that she may be yet another example an accomplished individual who happens to fall short of our benchmarks for notability, at least at this time. (And the same may be the case for her often-writing partner, Duhamel, based on what I see there). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can three reviews in WP:RS fall short of the third bullet in WP:CREATIVE? Just asking. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Would you be able to post links to the actual reviews? I do see that 3:AM Magazine seems to be a notable and reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://nightowl.owu.edu/2016/review-of-caprice-by-denise-duhamel-and-maureen-seaton

https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/multiple-selves-painfully-split

http://www.lambdaliterary.org/reviews/11/05/caprice-collected-uncollected-and-new-collaborations-by-denise-duhamel-and-maureen-seaton/ Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't open the last one for some reason but what you've posted along with the short Tampa Bay Times interview may nudge it past GNG. Though I have to say I discounted that first odd Night Owl ref that seems especially bloggish and user-generated. ~~Weak~~ keep per GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The two added Pushcart Prizes on top of the coverage push me to strike the 'weak' part. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad; lambdaliterary.org doesn't support https. Fixed above. I was counting nightowl as peer review. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All sources given are trivial in the extreme. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In what world are Lambda Literary review and 3am Magazine trivial sources for poetry reviews? Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny cites on GS make WP:Prof unlikely. Sources are generally of too dubious nature for WP:Author. Early career. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Multiple reviews of her work in peer-reviewed journals should do it, though. See discussion above.Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the impact made by Emily Dickinson or Marianne Moore it's not much. Wikipedia bios are for people with a solid record of achievement that has made them notable, not beginners, however promising. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

that's an inappropriate standard in the other direction. The criterion for coverage in WP is notable, not famous. And WP PROF is irrelevant. She's a professor of poetry, not of the academic study of literature. Her notability has to be judged a a poet. This is an excellent case of where one should not use Google Scholar. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through more responses on this discussion and I still think this is a severe case of one event. Yes, that is talking about her merit as a poet. Longevitydude (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pushcart Prize is a very important award,and sufficient for notability . So us having 4 books of poetry published by university presses--this is very rare--most poets are published only by specialist publishers. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability for poets is often problematic — one can be highly regarded in the poetry community, have multiple published books, etc., and still not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. But in this case, I think the double Pushcart and heavy coverage of her in the small presses (where the poetry coverage usually is to be found) makes the case clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I assume that "professors of poetry" are quite rare, plus the awards, the coverage & multiple published works. On the balance of things, it's a keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

APN Live

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.Hasrdly any ,ention in WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 15:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No outside sources, just official websites. The article only gives basic information, I see nothing of substance that would make it worthy of an encyclopedia. Longevitydude (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A13 derby

[edit]

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

No evidence that matches between these teams are actually referred to as a derby with this name. T v x1 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a football derby as evidenced by the following football rivalry chart: https://thechriswhitingshow.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/2012-football-rivalry-census-results/comment-page-1/ Locally, games are referred to as the A13 derby because of the road travelled between the two stadia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidt93 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some random guy's blog on Wordpress? Seriously?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable and need to meet GNG which this particular example doesn't Spiderone 13:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 13:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LuTran Pharmaceuticals

[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; I could not find any independent reliable sources about this company(the only sources offered are a press release and another type of promotional page). The fact that this company was founded in 2016 according to the article suggests it is too soon for an article about it. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corp spam with language such as "...He is a senior executive with over 30 years of experience in the complete drug development process..." Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Here is a complete search of Ronald Griffith RC Research. Woarearume (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Woarearume: — I'm not clear on what that has to do with the article being discussed. It is about a company, not a person or their research. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: That person is a company Director and Chief Science Officer. im proving the 30 years of experience point(mention above by K.e.coffman). Woarearume (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Woarearume: That might mean he merits an article, but not his company. And that was offered as an example of why deletion is warranted.331dot (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lenar

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP: NCOMPANY. The article gives no indication of importance, and has been tagged as unsourced for over seven years. As noted by Delete votes in the previous AfD (which was closed as no consensus), the company's only notable work is the game Deadly Towers, which by itself does not pass on notability to the company. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company has developed at least one commercially successful game and a number of lesser ones. Also, they appear to have a longer history than what the article indicates. This GiantBomb page indicates that they changed their name to Astroll in 1997 and developed several other games afterwards. I also found this page which lists some Japanese sources for more information. This article needs some more research but it's in line with other small developer articles that have been kept. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 10:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:INHERIT. I also don't buy the WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Bus No. 360 Express

[edit]

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

A trivial article with no claim of notability or significance. PROD was deleted with "This is a necessary page which can help passengers learn about the bus route so that it is convenient for them.", which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Coderzombie (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this not notable for Wikipedia.Seaweed (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTGUIDE; we aint no free webhost for municipal transport. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please. Doesn't belong here. Samf4u (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivia with no evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that for other cities, we have lists of bus routes, but not articles for each individual bus route, so there seems to be a consensus that this kind of thing is not notable. --Danaman5 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are external reliable sources about this bus route, and contrary to many comments above that bus route articles don't belong, we do have individual articles for most London bus routes. Deryck C. 15:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly surprising since some of them are over a century old. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure how this passes gng Chetsford (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global concrete polishing institute

[edit]

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

Does not meet the organization notability guidelines Also seems a tad promotional as the page was created by a user claiming to be the director of this organization which is a conflict of interest issue(uncertain if they are paid for that position) My search could not find any sources other than related websites and a few press releases. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'd say a "tad" promotional is very forgiving. The whole thing is a WP:Coatrack by User:Proper education (temporarily blocked) to promote himself and his utterly non-notable concrete polishing "institute." Well, something's being polished here, and it ain't concrete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by "tad" promotional I meant that it wouldn't meet the G11 speedy delete bar IMO. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organisation.Seaweed (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and promotional. --Lockley (talk) 03:12, 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 merge or redirect to Daikaijuu Monogatari. Please discuss any merging of information on that talk page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daikaijuu Monogatari II

[edit]

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

Contested WP: PROD. No reason was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. No claim of importance, and no cited sources. Martin IIIa (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game appears to exist but nothing in reliable sources. It seems reasonable to redirect this to its predecessor at Daikaijuu Monogatari (though I'm not entirely sure that one meets N either--probably will only find offline sources for either). --Izno (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DM1 has been reviewed by at least Famitsu and Family Computer Magazine, according to the jawp article, so it might be possible that one is notable. Gonna see if I can find any Japanese RSs discussing DM2.--IDV^talk 11:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC) UPDATE: Yeah, I can't find anything for DM2 in Japanese either. I support merging DM2 into DM1.--IDV^talk 11:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the only coverage appears to be WP:MILL coverage of all console releases. Daikaijū Monogatari is a suitable merge/redirect target. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The questionable notability of Daikaijuu Monogatari is precisely the reason why I brought this to AfD instead of boldly redirecting it; I don't think it's good policy to redirect to an article which is likely to be deleted in the future. If and when the target article is then deleted, the redirect article will be speedy deleted under WP: G8, making it a sort of backdoor deletion. And honestly, I'm a bit puzzled as to why I didn't PROD Daikaijuu Monogatari at the same time as I did this article, since at present its sourcing certainly doesn't meet notability standards.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Darna. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darna (2017 film)

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF since this movie has not officially entered production. Every aspects of its production have mostly been about casting and the director's plan to make it, and there's not a single report around the web that it has started principal photography. (I bet it doesn't even have a script yet.) So its simply WP:TOOSOON. Bluesphere 11:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darna - film was upcoming 2018 cannot find sourced, even WP:CRYSTAL not released yet. also moved created draft. Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darna as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will you please specify which part of the guideline for reasons for deletion does the article qualifies because it does not say that when an article about an upcoming film has only details about the casting it should be deleted? In addition, the subject has exceeded the guideline of Wikipedia for notability. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollyckuhno, the notability is not what is at stake here. In case you haven't read my rationale, this movie hasn't officially started principal photography (shooting). WP:NFF says and I quote: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Since the article's production section only tackles earlier plans to make this movie as well as the casting choices of the filmmakers, the project is just under the pre-production stage at this point and it's too early to be creating this article in the mainspace. Bluesphere 10:29, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Singh

[edit]

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

The subject is claimed to be the President of a student's union in East Uttar Pradesh, a state in India. Hasn't held an elected position yet at the state or national level. Handful of sources mention him with respect to a court dispute. I haven't been able to find sources confirming subject's qualification on WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I suggest deletion of this biography. Lourdes 10:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not yet notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO: leader of a regional group of the student wing of a political party, and I can find no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm frankly stunned by just how often we seem to get articles about student union leaders in India. But that's not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and there isn't anywhere near enough reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG for it. Also, à propos of nothing, where in Jesus Christ's underpants did anybody ever get the notion that that is where an article's infobox goes? Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am stunned by that "infobox". Didnt the creator even bother to look at some other article's source code for that? Instead he copied a wikitable from somewhere. @Bearcat: your comment lol'ed me! :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:POLOUTCOMES. We are not a web host for student activists, who in my day (now I sound old, huh?) were dime a dozen. We almost never keep student political leaders, and in fact, a few years ago we went on a wholesale deletion of student senate/SA President articles. FWIW, I start grad school next week. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural Keep: excessive nominations of colleges/high schools contrary to consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fazaia Intermediate College, Islamabad

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Greenbörg (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 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. Procedural Keep: excessive nominations of colleges/high schools contrary to consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hira Schools (Pakistan)

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Greenbörg (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 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. Procedural Keep: excessive nominations of colleges/high schools contrary to consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Model High School, Pattoki

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Greenbörg (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 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. Procedural Keep: excessive nominations of colleges/high schools contrary to consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School for Contemporary and Islamic Learning

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS Greenbörg (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 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. Procedural Keep: excessive nominations of colleges/high schools contrary to consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIUI Schools Okara Campus

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Greenbörg (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ricotta-filled ravioli

[edit]

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

It is not encyclopedic, it is a cookbook. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 08:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ravioli per WP:NOTCOOKBOOK, and it's a common filling for ravioli in a few countries. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per Uncle Roy. C'mon. --Lockley (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lockley, that's correct! --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is literally a recipe. Possibly a speedy candidate. This isn't a search-term that needs a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Power~enwiki, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, it is an encyclopedia, per WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. Delete this page. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 09:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990)

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and I don't believe he passes GNG Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 11:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CrateDB

[edit]

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

Sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. PROD notice removed with no reasoning. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi HighKing, CrateDB is gaining importance in the database tech scene. I had launched the page some years ago as it is a late success within a regional open source initiative, which I was involved in 2006. Several people have edited the article, and I did an update today. I was deleting the delete notice because the info I got says: "You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary". A summary of the edit update has been provided. I can guarantee that this article is not paid and I am not having any relation with CRATE. I know one of the founders (who was also active in the open source initiative in 2006), and when I interviewed him I paid the coffee myself. I can try to find more references for usage of this open source database technology, e.g. download statistics. Rasos (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rasos, there's pretty clear criteria on acceptable sources to establish notability such as WP:N and WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH sections especially. To date, the sources you've added do not meet the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I think the sources in the article confirming Crate Data funding satisfy WP:GNG, although I'd like to see more quality sources describing the technology itself. Also the article is reasonably written and not spammy, unlike so many other obscure product articles. -- intgr [talk] 22:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi intgr, I've looked at the funding articles. Sources should be seen as intellectually independent. The TechCrunch article fails WP:ORGIND since the information is provided by the company and the article relies almost completely on quotations from company officers or company-provided details. The Finsmes articles are News Releases from the company or VC firm announcing a deal so they also fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: I think you're misinterpreting WP:ORGIND. Sadly there is no official policy/guideline about independent sources, WP:IS is the closest thing I guess.

ORGIND would apply if TechCrunch was simply reposting Crate's press release. But in this case it's an original TechCrunch article, roughly half of which is quotes from Crate's representatives. TechCrunch's editors were the ones to choose the quotes for their own narrative — they had editorial independence — which is regular reporting. Secondary sources must, by definition, be based on information from primary sources.

As for FinSMES, I'm not convinced it qualifies for WP:RS, but again they look like independent articles — reporting based on the press releases perhaps — but not simply reposts of the press releases. Compare the article article to the press release for that funding announcement. Or do you have specific evidence that they have a connection to Crate Data or Dawn Capital? -- intgr [talk] 12:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi intgr, Apologies, I should have referred to WP:CORPDEPTH which states quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or and brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, as criteria for excluding sources in order to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi HighKing, I'm with Crate, and thanks for raising these issues. There are quite a lot of recent references to CrateDB, that should be added to the page. Can you please postpone the deletion process and give us time to find a community member willing to freely update the page with references like the following? I believe they meet the guidelines you mentioned...quality sources and also very fair and detailed descriptions of the technology:

April 2017 - Scala Days Conference Keynote - Jepsen 7 (CrateDB): Anna Concurrenina by Kyle Kingsbury https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSaFVX4izsQ&feature=youtu.be&t=23m50s
Feb 2017: Tech Trailblazers "Big Data Trailblazer Award 2016" http://www.techtrailblazers.com/competition-winners/winners-2016/
Dec 2016: The Register: "Crate unboxes clustered SQL CrateDB, decamps to California" https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/14/crateio_unboxes_cratedb_10/
Sept 2016: Characterizing your system’s behavior using design of experiments https://www.qualtrics.com/eng/characterizing-system-design-of-experiments/
June 2016 - Jepsen: Crate 0.54.9 version divergence https://aphyr.com/posts/332-jepsen-crate-0-54-9-version-divergence
May 2017: DB-Engines.com CrateDB System Properties: https://db-engines.com/en/system/CrateDB
DatabACE (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DatabACE, please take a look at WP:N and WP:RS to understand what sources are acceptable to establish notability.

This YouTube video fails WP:N since YouTube is not regarded as a reliable source as their is no editorial oversight and is self-published. Furthermore, at 45:47 in the Talk, Kyle points to Crate as being a sponsor, so it cannot be regarded as intellectually independent.
The Techtrailblazers winner fails WP:AUD which states attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. I believe it is fair to say that a competition in a tiny area of emerging database technology is of limited interest and circulation.
The Register article is an "advertorial". There is no criticism, no mention of competition, everything really positive. It reads like a press release and is not intellectually independent. It fails WP:ORGIND and further down the article it becomes obvious that the information was provided to The Register directly by the company because the article says they were in touch, includes quotations from the CTO and also written communications as it states In an email to The Register from the CTO.
The qualtrics article (which is a blog post) fails because it is a blog which is regarded as a self-published source with no editorial oversight and therefore cannot be regarded as reliable
The Aphyr blog post fails the criteria for the same reason as the one above
The db-engines] listing fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations.

Sorry, but none of those sources are acceptable for establishing notability. It is perhaps WP:TOOSOON for this topic to have its own page. There's more than enough though to make sure it can be included on other articles such as "List of..." type articles. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Agreed about everything else, but the The Register article does appear to qualify for notability.

I understand your frustration with the low quality of many news sources, but that's not for Wikipedians to weed out. Advertorials exist and we just have to live with it. Notability doesn't require a source to be critical of the subject.

"the information was provided to The Register directly by the company" — so by your standards, if a news organizations interviews the company for an article, it's not considered an independent source any more? I think you're going overboard with this.

You also missed the part where CTO Paul Hofmann (the one "in an email to The Register") isn't from Crate Data, he's the CTO of Space-Time Insight, a user of CrateDB. -- intgr [talk] 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi intgr,

You say I understand your frustration with the low quality of many news sources, but that's not for Wikipedians to weed out. Actually the opposite is true. If the Editors don't weed them out, we end up with very low quality articles full of spam and little more than adverts pushing a company's POV. That's one of the reasons behind examining articles at AfD.
You say Advertorials exist and we just have to live with it - Advertorials and PRIMARY sources can be used to back-up certain non-contentious facts. This format or article just doesn't meet the criteria of source we require to establish notability.
You say Notability doesn't require a source to be critical of the subject. I agree, it doesn't, I made this point to highlight the lack of intellectual independence.....see next point
You ask so by your standards, if a news organizations interviews the company for an article, it's not considered an independent source. Not precisely. But if a "news" source runs a story and the only obvious "input" into the story is information from the company, then yes, it falls fouls of WP:ORGIND. "Independent source" means that the source must also be considered to be "intellectually independent". Advertorials which consist of large amounts of quotations from the company are not "intellectually independent". Those types of articles are really a form of "engagement with the press" and are typically "on-message" and positive. Just like most other forms of PR. There are articles that contain quotations from a company officer that would not be considered advertorials and would be acceptable. Just these ones aren't...
You say You also missed the part where CTO Paul Hofmann .... isn't from Crate Date. You right, I had missed that. You also say but The Register article does appear to qualify". I still don't believe so. If you look at the PR release by Crate on the 14th December (here's a link) it pretty much says all the same things. And even includes a quotation from Paul Hofmann, CTO of Space-Time Insight just like The Register.

Also understand, there are different criteria for getting listed in an article like List of column-oriented DBMSes and getting your own article. Also, can I ask if you have any connection with Crate? Any conflict of interest should be declared if it exists. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: I have no conflict of interest with CrateDB; I've never even used the software. I had this page on my watchlist, it was probably linked from one of the pages I maintain. Sorry that you spent the time writing up a long response, but I don't have the energy to debate this further and I doubt it would change either of our opinions, so let's just agree to disagree. -- intgr [talk] 22:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback @HighKing:. Can I ask why CrateDB is being flagged for deletion and a page like MongoDB is not? The references on that page clearly do not meet the criteria by which the CrateDB page references are being judged? If you want to flag the CrateDB page has having multiple issues (a la MongoDB), that seems fair...or propose the deletion of MongoDB. Neo4j references...links to their website? Tweets? DB-Engines ranking? Delete that? InfluxDB..same..delete it?

My point is that the CrateDB page does not seem to vary from the norm on the topic of database management software here. And if you take a view of CrateDB in the real world (based on references we're discussing here and many more), it is an open source software project that has a substantial following of users, that the press/media finds relevant, that independent technology thought leaders like Aphyr consider worth covering in things like the Jepson tests (his decision to test CrateDB was neither prompted by nor paid for by Crate.io).

Anyway..I hope the voters will elect to keep the page...flag it as having issues maybe, but deletion seems extreme IMHO. DatabACE (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DatabACE, in general arguments along the lines of "but XX exists so why not YY" aren't considered. The minimum requirement for notability is generally accepted as two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. If you examine each of those articles, chances are that among the sources that don't qualify, you'll find two that do. If they don't, you (or someone else) may check to see if two sources can be found and if not, may nominate the article for deletion. Using PRIMARY sources and other sources that don't meet the criteria for establishing notability are acceptable for establishing non-controversial facts. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the schooling HighKing...I'm trying to RTFM here as quickly as I can to come up to speed.

Delete -- investment prospectus / product brochure. No indications of notability or significance. Sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH while the funding numbers are minuscule as far as tech startups go. WP:NOTADVOCACY -- Wikipedia does not exist to improve funding prospects of minor private companies.

Adding WP:TNT to the mix: "The developer community is meeting at mountain hackathons" -- what does this even mean? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K.e.coffman, I'm not sure the WP:CORPDEPTH apply here, since this page is about an open source software system, not a company. The page was originally about the company, CrateIO (thus the corporate-ish reference history), but was retitled last year. DatabACE (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If the page does get deleted... Is it possible to create a new one in its place? And if so, how soon? Of course, without the issues which led to its deletion in the first place. Again, my plea would be to have it flagged as having issues (rather than deletion) to give the CrateDB community a little more time to bring it up to date and into compliance with notability requirements. DatabACE (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is possible but unless it meets the criteria for notability, it will also be deleted and if the topic is persistently created, there may be a case to WP:SALT the topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for my future reference...do we agree that articles like The Register (last December) are reliable (secondary) independent of the subject? Yes...article was triggered by a CrateDB product announcement, but the the journalist decided whether the news was notable enough to write an article about and The Register editors decided the article was notable enough to publish. Issuing a press release does not guarantee that those two gates (article writing and publishing) will be cleared...they are usually not! The Register journalist also interviewed other sources (not just Crate.io spokespeople/press release). I assume everyone here understands the difference between journalism and advertorials...there are some news sites that just regurgitate press releases, but TechCrunch, TheRegister aren't two of them. DatabACE (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, see my comments on those sources above. The articles are not intellectually independent and fail to meet the criteria to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question2 - @HighKing: I noticed that you added a notability banner to the InfluxDB page late last year. Yet, with CrateDB you went right to AfD? Why the difference in treatment? This doesn't seem objective. Is it too late to take the same path with the CrateDB page? DatabACE (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is too late. This article is a lot older and in my opinion there was adequate time to find sources. I originally PRODded the article and the notice was removed without any attempt to improve the article or engage in a discussion about how to improve it, so the next option was here. Other editors may have different ways of working and may have placed a different banner, or may have moved straight to AfD. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the editor #1 of the article I feel responsible to add more independent voices. You may have noted that I added a section "Review". A test result with some flaws in data consistency has been cited. CrateDB definitely should get more reviews and probably needs some more time to achieve that goal. As you may all have noticed, the article is supported by WikiProject Software and WkiProject Computing. And well, it's about Open Source, which typically has less visibility in media than proprietary software. Rasos (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references you added are one blog post and one youtube video. They are considered self-published and therefore do not meet the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've spent considerable time looking for sources that meet the criteria and I believe I have found at least one and possibly two. As such, I am striking the implied "Delete" from my nomination and moving to Keep. These sources were not easy to find so apologies if this seems like I had not researched previously - I had.

Infoworld article appears to be a reliable independent secondary source that does not appear to rely on company quotes of materials.
Google Books: Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction appears to be a collection of various papers. This is debatable for me but I believe this book meets the criteria.

I would appreciate a second opinion on the above sources, especially the book. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for going the extra mile/kilometer to find those sources HighKing. much appreciated. This has been a valuable learning experience; if the page remains we will moderate its maintenance more vigilantly. DatabACE (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As even the original nominator of this article for Afd now with the newly found sources supports keeping this article, I think it might be a good idea to finally have this Afd decided and closed. In my opinion there is more than enough evidence in the article now showing the state of notability. At least the two sources that HighKing found definitly also meet our criteria. Therefor the issues that originally led to this Afd have been fixed and the article can be kept. --Plani (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is a piece of software (and a notable piece, it's widely(sorry!) used) being judged against CORPDEPTH? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 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. The argument that the company is WP:LISTED. Therefore, keep is a misreading of WP:LISTED. The sources cited were potentially useful to establish WP:N, but nobody agreed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghani Automobile Industries

[edit]

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

A local company with no notability. Greenbörg (talk) 16:21, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find adequate sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is WP:LISTED. Therefore, keep and improve. See: Express Tribune, Express Tribune & The Nation. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-cited & does not make a claim to notability. LISTED does not guarantee that a subject should have an article. No prejudice to recreation if can be done with appropriate RS. However, no value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim sportspeople

[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list. As over 90% of the population of Pakistan and other countries are Muslim this list could go on forever. What about a list of Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, atheist sportspeople, where do you draw the line?? Ajf773 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not really seeing a compelling reason why this should be treated differently than other "List of Muslim PROFESSION" articles, like List of Muslim philosophers or List of Muslim writers and poets. Beyond that, I think the spirit of PRESERVE may apply here, since this is a pretty substantially worked on list, at 60k+ and nearly 200 references. TimothyJosephWood 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing a compelling reason why we should keep based on other examples which arent' anything like the article in question. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Most of the references are just player profiles and give away almost nothing about their faith. Ajf773 (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant (though not determinative) discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2#Category:Muslim sportspeople as to why the corresponding category was deleted. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable list topic and other similar articles exist for Muslims as pointed above, as well as List of Jews in sports (of which List of Jewish sportspeople is a redirect), etc. Smartyllama (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports (3rd nomination), kept at least in part due to sources expressly focused on the topic of Jewish sportspeople. I guess our question here is, do we expect this particular list to pass WP:LISTN such that this grouping itself has been covered (are there sources about Muslims in sports generally?), or do we accept that "people by religion and occupation" is generally a valid way to list people such that we don't need a specific justification for each such intersection of a religion and occupation? postdlf (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page is too general to be useful. Could become a category page, or be replaced by more specific pages (e.g., list of American Muslim sportspeople). Power~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There would be more merit in doing this. As I said before we would have to include practically every cricketer who played for Pakistan or Bangladesh (bar a few exceptions), however we couldn't list a great deal of Australian, British Muslims, etc. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thinking about User:postdlf's question, google books finds many books about Muslim athletes in general. And specifically, being a Muslim athlete is often a notable part of an individuals biography - there are many stories about how a Muslim athlete dresses or what a Muslim athlete does during Ramadan when many Muslim's fast. Lists of Muslim athletes are also common[8]. However, there are many athletes who happen to be Muslim, but their religion is more or less irrelevant, including some individuals on the huffpo list to which I just linked. On the other hand, as the nominator suggests, the article could easily be increased many times in length by looking for Muslim Olympians and international level athletes from Mulsim majority countries. For this reason, I think the list is a bit indiscriminate and not very helpful for navigation. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is an underlying assumption in the list that references are required only for players who are from nations where Muslims are in a minority. Also many references do not explicitly state that the said player is Muslim, relying instead on names that sound Muslim, or family backgrounds that touch upon the Muslim upbringing, without mentioning the player's personal beliefs. What I however intend to convey is not associated with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but to the fact that the intersection between religion and sports is always a forced one. However WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid reason not to delete as well as I personally feel that Jews and Muslims are two sides of the same coin when it comes to religiosity, and the reason why such articles even exist also has got to do with that. A WP:TNT to create a list of American/French/British Muslim sportspeople as mentioned above, may be a better option, as the co-relation between sports and religion is more pronounced (and probably only exists) in cases where Muslims are a minority. Jupitus Smart 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as currently established. Per a lot of the commentary above, there's something to be got out of a list like this, and possibly a couple of somethings. While the list could currently (and mercifully doesn't) list just about everyone who's ever competed at a high enough level for several countries, the point is well-made that the religiosity of certain Muslim sportspeople is a notable thing - Hashim Amla and his cricket kit without certain sponsor logos comes to mind immediately, and I'm sure I've read things about the impacts of Ramadan for people doing things like distance running and playing basketball. In other cases, the athlete is known for being outspoken about "Muslim things" (Anthony Mundine, although he was outspoken before he converted anyway). If the sentiment is against adding something at the start of the list saying that an athlete only qualifies if they're notable for being Muslim, rather than by being a notable sportsperson who happens to be Muslim, then I'd agree with the TNT option. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are many analogous articles like this on other religions, so why not this one? 92.2.69.110 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as??? Give us some examples. I find it astonishing an IP address' only Wikipedia entry is on this AfD discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is ridiculous. The list would be huge and impossible to maintain. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world, how can you have a page that details all their sportspeople? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is to be deleted, we're going to do it for a valid reason. Thinking that it must contain all people who literally qualify is not one of them. Please familiarize yourself with list guidelines and practice, as it is completely standard to limit lists of people to only those who have or merit articles. postdlf (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too indiscriminate to be useful and nearly always not a significant intersection of sports and religion. If the category was deleted, why would we keep the list? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are far to many muslim's in the world to make a list of all that play all sports. There is also no intersection of note between religion and sports playing. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list would be too long for us to have practical article. Lepricavark (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Wikipedia should not group people on the basis of their religions. This world already has its fair share of communal conflicts. No need to increase the "separatism". I dont understand why an encyclopaedia needs such a list.

Comment: Editors wo are voting for "keep": instead of pointing out why it should not be deleted, kindly point out why it deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. There is literally no use of this list, except to reverse search: "oh let me find out if XYZ muslim player is included in this list".

What comes next? "List of Christian sportspeople" or "List of English speaking sportspeople"? I think we should go with "List of White sportspeople" first, then we can work on black, yellow, and then brown Indians from India. The last list will be mostly of cricket players though. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:08, 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. Neither side of this discussion denied that this is a notable subject but there is no consensus to keep this as a separate article. No matter whether this is a POVFORK or not, there is consensus that it is an unnecessary fork not justified by WP:SPINOFF. Since the title is not NPOV, it also makes no sense to leave it as a redirect. Whether a neutral redirect can be created or not is not within the scope of this discussion. So Why 09:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sednaya Prison Syrian crematorium atrocities

[edit]

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

Classic WP:POVFORK. Much of the material here is already found at the Sednaya Prison article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh puh-lease:

That's just the first page of google search, all of it for THE CREMATORIUM. There are literally 18 more pages of sources (not mentions) though you get into non-reliable sources after the 9th page or so. That still leaves around NINETY reliable sources (I'm forced to estimate here because there are so many) for this particular topic. NOT the prison in general which has its own separate article (as it should), but THIS topic.

Honestly, if it wasn't for all the Trump stuff, this is the topic we'd all be talking about.

If somebody else had nominated this for deletion, I would've thought it's a WP:POINTy joke, but knowing the nominator's long history in this topic area, I am aware that unfortunately this is done not as a joke. It's a WP:ADVOCACY motivated WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT nomination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in case anyone thinks of saying that I am being unduly harsh on EtienneDolet, then just consider these recent two related edits of theirs [9][10]. Here EtienneDolet is insisting that text related to the deaths and burning of thousand of killed individuals is... "uncontroversial"! Yup, that's right. Denying mass murder is "non controversial". To him. Why does he do this? Because he wants to use a non-reliable source which up until recently employed a Stormfront neo-Nazi writer on their staff (he was let go when he was exposed). You can't make this up. This isn't WP:TROUT, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Étienne Dolet - I think there is enough extreme end bad faith material in VM's above comment to be sanctionable, if you were to pursue it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: You would think so. Indeed, lots of bad faith remarks, cursing, and misleading statements. In fact, you'd think that the edit-summary of this edit is sanctionable in and of itself ("purposeful dishonesty"?). At any rate, an admin like BU Rob13 or El C can look into it. While they're at it, VM also violated 1RR today ([11][12][13]) and refuses to self-revert. He also violated it yesterday ([14][15]). Need I say more? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the biggest and most important recent stories related to the war in Syria. I saw it even in Russian language publications a few days ago. There were some comparisons with Katyn massacre. Perhaps rename if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a WP:POVFORK. As Volunteer Marek (talk) stated, I believe this deserves it's own article. Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You created this article. You have to do more than just say "I believe this deserves it's own article". Why do you think its content is deserving of its own article separate from Sednaya Prison? In what way can all its content not be incorporated into the main article? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a POV-fork (of no stand-alone notability) from Sednaya Prison that has been given a zero-sourced OR and POV title. In what way is using a crematorium for its intended purpose an "atrocity"? BTW, is there more content in this "source" [16] visible to subscribers, or does its entire content really consist of just an exact word-for-word repeating of its headline? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per My very best wishes and Ethanbas, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per what? Per no valid reasons at all (Ethanbas's "I think it should be here because I created it and so I obviously think it should be here" and MVBW's ludicrous "one of the biggest and most important stories related to the war in Syria" assertion (has NVBW been living in a cave until last week?). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all three users gave valid reasons for their !vote - not a POV fork, a very notable story - so stop badgering them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone to explain themselves is not "badgering". Maybe Ethanbas' "it is so because I say it is so" and Мандичка's "I agree with so-and-so when he says it is so because I say it is so" are valid arguments in your eyes - but they should not be, and I hope will not be, for anyone else. Ethanbas has not explained WHY he thinks this subject is deserving of its own article - all he says is that it is deserving of its own article. He has not provided any supporting arguments that would dispel the fact that an article, Sednaya Prison, already exists that could easily contain all the content in this article. Consensus, may I remind you, is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sednaya Prison. 23 editor (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sednaya Prison and possibly merge some content. The event is likely notable, but right now, it's a content fork; the main prison article is already basically all about these and other atrocities, and this content should first be improved in one place before subarticles are spun off per WP:SS. Sandstein 09:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or delete as suggested below is also ok, the redirect isn't from a very probable title. Sandstein 08:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument that retains a highly pov title as a redirect, a title moreover that nobody will ever search for. Better to Delete, then create a neutral redirect like "Sednaya Prison crematorium". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the content is already in the article on the prison so there's nothing to merge; & I do not see the point of a redirect--it's a totally implausible search term in full, and it starts with the same word. I think this could better have been a A10 speedy as a duplicate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , ~~or redirect to Sednaya Prison,~~ pr nom, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious NPOV issues. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not WP:POVFORK. Plenty of good reliable sources. If there are issues about the contebt that should be discussed in the articles talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What possible reason can there be for having the same content in two Wikipedia articles? Exemplo347 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Not Going Out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Southby

[edit]

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

Non-notable child actor in his first role. Current refs include nothing which comes close to consideration for GNG, and I haven't find anything else on Google. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject's roles to date do not meet WP:ENT and coverage to date does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Not Going Out since it's more than likely that anyone searching for this person is doing so because of the series. gongshow talk 04:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Not Going Out, his only TV series so far. A simple redirect won't hurt anyone and they are cheap. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested wisely by Skr15081997. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Institute of Arts, Science and Technology

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion close due to too many AfDs. This university fails WP:GNG. Running illegally as per search. Greenbörg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - affiliated college of the University of Sindh. It's legit, not "running illegally." So, again, not much of a search. See WP:BEFORE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by HEC as affiliate of both the University of Sindh and Mehran University of Engineering and Technology. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as degree-awarding is sufficient for notability claims, regardless of any fixable concerns. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qalandar Shahbaz University of Modern Sciences

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion close due to too many AfDs. This university fails WP:GNG. Running illegally as per search. Greenbörg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is under evaluation by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, so not "running illegally." Wait a while and it might be a recognized university. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as degree-awarding is sufficient for notability claims, regardless of any fixable concerns. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Death

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Not enough found online to support inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep does have an Allmusic bio and a Decibel magazine review but the bio is short and more is needed, possibly from offline and non-google searches Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bios are neither self-published, nor in non-notable sources. Agreed more offline sources would enhance the value of this article but the notability of the subject matter is manifest. Deleting it outright would erase a notable topic from Wikipedia, when all it needs is a reference or two. This is a better candidate for the WP:ICU than for deletion. A lizard (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do note that a Google Books search for 'Nuclear Death' alone reveals nothing, while a search for "Nuclear Death" (band) reveals a lot. A lizard (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore City University

[edit]

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

Nothing comes up on searching. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Nothing comes up on searching. Fails WP:GNG[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself says it is fake − euphemistically "not recognized." Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally unrecognized schools in Pakistan are not notable, more like scams. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-recognized university that lacks coverage in reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Technology

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Greenbörg (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Sargodha, with which it is affiliated. This was easy to verify. How much research did you do? Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Affiliated colleges are separate institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as degree-awarding is sufficient for notability claims, regardless of any fixable concerns. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady Warriors

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Smells like a hoax to me. Nothing in sources to indicate this group is an actual thing. Most of the article talks about each wrestler's individual accomplishments and those are sourced, but there is nothing tying them all together under this "Lady Warriors" name. REEEEEbbon Salminen(talk) 05:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. REEEEEbbon Salminen(talk) 05:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as hoax or WP:OR. Nothing to indicate this actually exists. Nikki♥311 21:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a marketing gimmick, and a non-notable one at that. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:42, 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. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pankey

[edit]

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

The records website RecordSetter.com lacks credibility since there is no oversight or check of the records submitted to it - see this discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. It follows that a person whose only claim to notability is that he has a large number of records listed on that website does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria - and Wikipedia should not make the claim that he "holds 2,400 records", since the only thing that's known is that he has submitted 2,400 records to RecordSetter.com. I have found this Huff Post source mentioning him, but that's not significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Delete not notable. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is truly wonderful (and a bit disturbing) that someone is trying to set a record for "Most bites taken from three apples whilst juggling", but Pankey's claim doesn't appear to hold up. The word record seems to belong to a Michael Goudeau. Fortunately, these antics have attracted no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so Wikipedia can be spared an article about these trivialities. Mduvekot (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. BTW, I just marked all the dead links in the article. Guess what remained: his YouTube channel. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the above assessments. Additionally, the only thing I can find that is close to being notable is his appearance on "Stupid Human Tricks" on the old Letterman show and being briefly seen on America's Got Talent. While he is mentioned in an article on | Juggle.org, he is not the focus, merely mentioned in passing. Ceronomus (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I found some sources that provide coverage about the subject. The first one listed below provides significant coverage, the second provides 2 paragraphs, and there's also some short articles about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any evaluation of the sources found by Northamerica1000?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear notable (at this time). Simply not enough here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:N Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, snowball delete. --Lockley (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete snow del, nom and GNG. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:02, 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) 09:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothesis based testing

[edit]

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

A test methodology. No attempt made to show notability. Little better than original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notabiltiy, has a certain air of promoting a pet concept. The only references are to the creator's website and slideshow, and all illustrations that specifically refer to the software testing procedure are directly from these sources (the creator having waived copyright). I am not familiar enough with the field to know if there is anything unique about what is described, or if someone is just trying to advance a neologism (or a detailed formalization) for what is in effect standard practice, but without independent referencences, we can't know whether the term is used outside of the company where it was developed. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Power~enwiki (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ~~WP:SNOW,~~ WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:OR. I've taught many subjects, from Business law to living environment, and none of it makes sense. Perhaps it's just too esoteric. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Vishsank inserted its !vote above, but after, mine. I have since stricken out one argument. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Followup note - I have moved Vishsank's !vote to the bottom, where it belonged, rather than interrupting the nomination as it did. Agricolae (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - included several citations from international journals and magazines. Also added online references. Vishsank (talk)17:30, 25 May 2017 (IST)

Not all of the added references are useful. Ref. 2, "In pursuit of cleanliness" is a step in the right direction, but it is a bit of a word soup and I am not familiar enough with the publication (is that what it is?) to know if it is sufficient to establish notability; ref. 3, "Unisys technical report" is in a language I don't read, so I can't evaluate it; ref. 4, "Accelerate Defect Detection" is a press release, not independent; ref. 5, "Happy Days" does not mention HBT; ref. 6, "Testing waters" is a blog post that only mentions it in the comments section, so it is worthless; ref. 7, "Scientific method" is from a 'journal' so obscure I can't find anything about it; ref. 9, "strategic consultancy" is a company marketing flier, so perhaps shows its use outside of the creator, but its value as a WP:RS is debatable; ref. 10 is again straight from the creator, so not independent; the last ref "Aesthetics" only mentions HBT in passing, and is of debatable quality as an RS. In short, I am not convinced of notability, but even if a case can be made for notability, it doesn't excuse the massive amounts of WP:OR that make up the article, and it would need to be pared down to a stub. Agricolae (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a muddled presentation of concepts from systems, software, requirements, and test engineering, with very poor attribution of the author's ideas to sources, such as they are, and no awareness of the extensive technical literature in these fields. The confusion alone would be enough for WP:TNT; the WP:OR must be fatal to the article. All testing (if, as Dijkstra said, you are not simply experimenting in the hope of finding something wrong) is necessarily hypothesis-based, so the title is as vacuous as the text, I hesitate to write 'content'. The diagram of traceability is as disastrous a muddle as the text (and is being deleted), with the test list shown twice but traced in two different ways, and the test cases trace forwards to tests but backwards to requirements, enough said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete: per other comments on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as original research. --Lockley (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Newsom

[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Several refs fail to mention her at all, others are simply directory listings. One is a blog that identifies her as gay (hardly notable for that) and one references Landon Dunning (an alternative name ?) Between them there is nothing of any reliability or robustness indicating notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Velella - I found out Dunning is her maiden name, she changed her name after getting married and she's not gay either, she's married to a director Robby Starbuck. Assuming you were assuming because of the profile in Pride or Out but that's just because she had a decent size group of gay fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMusicPedia (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys I accidentally submitted the page before I was done editing it, it's edited now. Please review. I've included notable links for feature in MTV, 90210, guest vocalist on The Used cd, Tour with Plain White T's etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMusicPedia (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: It's not great, but it's enough, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current references are not enough to establish notability. The BusinessWire link is a press release from a marketing company. There's a lot of links to AllMusic but no actual reviews or editorial content there. There are some other directory-style listings (Discogs, IMDb, TV listings). The artist's own material is referenced. The Pride article is mostly a quote from Landon's PR people. And the rest don't actually mention Landon at all. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but only if somebody weeds through those invalid references to Tumblr, to wikipedia, etc. per Colapeninsula. --Lockley (talk) 20:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. L. Hall

[edit]

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

We don't add high school baseball players on Wikipedia Alexf505 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid rationale given. Article appears to pass WP:GNG [17][18][19] and there are plenty of articles on high school baseball players; see 2017 Major League Baseball draft#Prospects. Lizard (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lizard.--Yankees10 05:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Lizard the Wizard, partly. The first source seems to be WP:RS, but the 2nd is a blog, and the 3rd is dubiously reliable. A Google News search, however, settles notability concerns. I would suggest that Alexf505 should stay away from NPP and other stuff besides anti-vandalism patrolling until they've gained sufficient experience and knowledge of how Wikipedia works. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per discussion above. --Lockley (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator has not supplied a valid reason for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lizard the Wizard and J947's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:TOOSOON. The article itself is too soon, but deleting it 3 weeks before the MLB draft is also too soon. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep This sourcing was too weak to create the article, but the draft is in 10 days, he will be chosen, and stories will be written about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 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 speedy delete. WP:A7 Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Wilson (music producer)

[edit]

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

Nothing to be found on gnews [20], pretty sure that it fails the the general notability guideline. Sorry. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:14, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm surprised this could not be speedy deleted. The lone "source", Discogs, can be edited by anyone and is thus not reliable. Clearly fails every guideline pertaining to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here and I also can't figure out why this wasn't speedy deleted. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete the author is User:Ken Will - a Single Purpose Account. It's SPAM. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament

[edit]

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

Under-19 WC is notable but can't see other practice cups notable too. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete U19 tournaments, apart from the U19 World Cup, don't usually meet the notability requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – I'm a little confused by the !votes above to be honest. WP:GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ESPNcricinfo, which is clearly both reliable and independent of the subject provides five news articles on the 2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament, six news articles on the 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament and seven for the 2015 Sri Lanka Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament. WP:GNG defines significant coverage as being "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Multiple news articles, clearly meets the definition of significant coverage provided. The articles clearly meet the notability requirements mentioned by Lugnuts in the specific guideline cited by Joseph2302 and Greenbörg. Harrias ^talk 08:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above, which show that WP:GNG is met. Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These small cricket tournaments have dubious notability. Delete them all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me I am on the fence here as the keep do have good points with Cricinfo being a realible source but then you have the delete side where this is doesn't meet the notability requirements so for me I will be staying on the fence for this one. Matt294069 is coming 03:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those suggesting that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines are simply incorrect, as I demonstrated. Joseph2302 simply stated "All fail WP:GNG", but I set out the specific requirements of the WP:GNG, and showed how the articles met them. Harrias ^talk 10:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cricinfo covered these matches is not "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Apart from Cricinfo, it's got no coverage. This it fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. The 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation has significant coverage in more than just ESPNcricinfo, for example: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. These six newspapers include Bangladesh's largest English-language newspaper and two major Indian news services (IANS and PTI). Considering this, 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament plainly meets WP:GNG. Without searching in as much detail, the same appears to be true for the other two - reliable news organizations in the competing countries covered the event in sufficient detail for us to be able to write a complete encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will prefer to keep 2015 Sri Lanka Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament but still go for delete for 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament. Afghans and Bangladeshis U-19 can't be notable. Greenbörg (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per coverage identified by User:Worldbruce. Those voting "delete" need to explain how this significant and independent coverage doesn't push this tournament past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all sources provided by User:Worldbruce indicate there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogatiya

[edit]

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

Per PROD rationale: 'Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline per gnews search, with nothing to be found in Google Books either. Sorry. I would suggest a redirect to the band.' Same rationale. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominators reasons --Jennica✿ / ^talk 20:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nut dilation

[edit]

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

This article is not linked, 1 references only and it is no categories. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is pure advertisement. Also per nom. Reb1981 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Nut (hardware). This is promotional and non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 20:15, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Colombia

[edit]

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

the resident ambassador has not even happened yet, it's been announced. Most of the sources are about a non resident ambassador. Even if a resident Embassy is established, we don't create lists of 1. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced, comfortably surpasses WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9 of the 12 sources are government sources and not third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here's an analysis of the sources. 5, 6 and 9 make zero mention of Colombia. 7,8, 10 and 11 make a one word mention of Colombia and are about other diplomatic relations especially Chile. This article comfortably fails WP:GNG . LibStar (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's very clearly not a list of 1 and includes a referenced explanation of the evolution of Australia's presence in Colombia, which is more than just trivial information. There are other Ambassador list pages that have much less information or direct references than this one.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. yes it's a list of non resident ambassadors which can be adequately covered in other articles. LibStar (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments can be valid or not valid, but it is valid to compare this page to the state of information/referencing in other list pages that still exist (and have done for a long time, including ones that have no consensus for deletion). Given the level of coverage and references, notability has been established.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also includes a list of the Consuls-General/Trade Commissioners that have been appointed to Bogota since 2012 (including a wiki-linked former non-resident ambassador). So your claim that they are all non-resident is incorrect.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we rarely create list of Consuls-General because they don't have ambassador status. But really this is a list of non resident ambassadors, consuls and to be assigned ambassador. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So clearly, not just a list of one, and each part of that list is explained and referenced. The (albeit pending) appointment of an Australian ambassador, and the recent (last 5 years) development of Australia's presence in Colombia is a notable topic that has been covered in Australian and international press.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 01:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of relevant information from a decent variety of sources, appears to easily meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - As above, well references, comfortably passes WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

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. Ignoring the extensive socking, unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas M. Chaillan

[edit]

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

Non notable founder of 6 non-notable companies. He then took a government position--there are two references given to show its importance, but neither does. ref 29 refers only to his previous position, and ref 30 is an office email that doesn't document his position-- not that it would be a RS in any event. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Sounds like the kind of person from whom more will be heard in future years, but until it is, he's not notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guys, Nicolas Chaillan was the founder of his first company at age 15. He founded 12 companies (not 6) and he sold over 180 products to over 40 fortune 500, making several millions of dollars. After making that much money, he decided to make a difference and sold some of his companies to join the USG. He is now the Chief Architect of Cyber.gov. For those who don't know, Cyber.gov is the world first holistic cyber architecture for all of the civilian federal agencies... Securing from DOJ to DOE to DHS... Over 436 agencies. That's not just a government position, this is one of the most senior position in the US Government in IT/Cyber. If that's not enough to be notable I don't know what you need... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.146.78 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC) — 71.48.146.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep Being the Chief Architect of DHS Cyber.gov is enough by itself. It's not public yet and that's why you have only two weak references. It will be published worldwide by July 1st so if you have doubts, let's wait but it is clearly notable.— Thomasnyc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking-through contribution from sockpuppet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC) *Keep he is one of the world renown cyber experts. Cyber is a different beast and people talk less about it but let's wait and see his publications but a simple Google search confirms that he is notable .[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck through. In the interests of assuming good faith, I've kept the later, longer rationale. User in question has deleted previous comments regarding conduct of this AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you've had any success finding sources confirming his notability, please add them to the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. Amanda.

He already has over 25 articles including top tiers US newspaper. His company was named startup of the day by Microsoft. I am really not sure what more there is. Many other have way less than this. Not sure why suddenly he is being targeted. His page has been up for a year or so. His fund alone made him famous but his .gov appearance is even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F15E:4901:FC97:C88C:396A:DB02 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His page has over 30 references proving his notability. I do not understand why we are reviewing this page. Reuters, Washington Post, Amazon, Microsoft, Washington Business Journal, Bloomberg. Those are top tier newspapers. That's why his page was approved in the first place. Now his DHS role that will be announced publicly, it seems we just have to wait to see how big this will be, but this will be on then news. The first cyber architecture of the US...

*Comment I added several significant references, including top tiers French newspaper and US. This confirm my initial decision. There is a lot more on Google about Nicolas Chaillan. At 32 years old, he is definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment by sockpuppet struck through. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is egregiously self-promotional. The fact that he "founds six companies before the age of thirty" is irrelevant if none of those companies are notable. A job which "isn't public yet", by definition, cannot be notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:clearly you don't know what you are talking about. His fund was notable with dozens of articles. His company AFTER-MOUSE.COM was the first to create touch table solutions with Microsoft and his role at DHS IS completely public but the architecture isn't published yet. The article itself is not at all self promotional. I only hear jealousy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Strike-through comment of sockpuppet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep: this shouldn't even be a question. Being Chief Architect at DHS is enough to be notable but then you see that he had a 20M fund, 12 companies (plus AFTER-MOUSE.COM which is widely deployed here in Brazil... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroBrazil (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — AjejandroBrazil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike-through contribution from sockpuppet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: easy decision. Chief Architect DHS by 32, that by itself is notable. AFTER-MOUSE.COM is also quite notable. Having a 20M fund is also interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamMontreal (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — WilliamMontreal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking sock. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some of these voters have obviously been canvassed by somebody with a personal interest in this article, or are just sock-puppets. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for the "AfD isn't a vote" template for a while (haven't had to use it forever, so I'd forgotten its name), as this is exactly what's required for this situation. Added now, and if it goes on for much longer I'm going to look at starting a sock investigation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about me you better back this up by real facts. People agreeing with each other doesn't mean there is some scam going on. Again this proves that people are just biased when it comes to handling other people who don't agree with them. Start any inquiry you want, I have the same right as you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely the same rights as everyone else. agreed. The concern was raised because it's unusual for a newly-registered editor (much less several and a couple of IPs) to make some of their first edits at an AfD. I'm perfectly willing to believe that there are other explanations, but it does seem odd to say the least. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't talk about the other people as I don't know them, but I did already comment on several AfD I decided to start working on those for now as I'm not experienced enough with the editor. It doesn't mean I can't see who is notable or not. It seems none of you are from the US and the new cyber plan from DHS is of tremendous importance here. You might not realize it yet but it will impact us all. No one asked me to come or talk here. And as you can see they all have different names and IPs so they can't be related... at least I am not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaCA87 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the accounts have different names, yes. I didn't say they had the same name. As far as something which "will impact us all", I would point you to the essay WP:TOOSOON, which addresses that issue more comprehensively than I intend to here. Additionally, recall that notability isn't inherited. Even should the plan impact everyone, that would then suggest that an article should be written on it unless there are then the multiple third-party sources on any of the people behind it. Obviously in that situation there would most likely be those sources, but the argument that something will have a tremendous impact and therefore one of the people behind it is automatically notable doesn't work with the policies that Wikipedia runs on. Additionally, please remember to sign your posts. Just type four tilde characters (like this one ~) after your comment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the person that is creating the plan and that is Chief Architect shouldn't be notable? Sorry but having founded 12 companies plus a 20m fund plus that seems quite enough for me for a 32 years old. He has 33 references I really don't understand your point. The page has been up for years. Why is this coming out now when he works for the USG? That seems quite shady to me... I just don't even understand when we have porn actresses on this site with a profile but we don't want our top cyber experts? To be selected to do this by the US President should be quite enough??? AmandaCA87 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about too soon. But it isnt. It's not like he only did this before. Companies, fund, PHP. 33 references prove it isn't too soon. AmandaCA87 (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say as one of the original contributor of this page, I'm quite shocked that a deletion is being considered and I can't help but wonder why it is happening 2 years later, right when Nicolas Chaillan is selected by the President of the United States to manage their new cybersecurity. This seems quite shady. 33 references as Amanda said are more than most entry level pages on Wikipedia. Thomasnyc (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: WilliamMontreal, AlejandroBrazil, and AmandaCA87 are Confirmed socks of Thomasnc. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thomasnyc.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm persuaded by the arguments made by the nominator, especially regarding the documentation on being "Chief Architect" of a US-government cybersecurity division. The first source (footnote 29) pre-dates the subject's hiring by the government and tells us only that he was a panel speaker at a government conference. And the second is just an inter-office e-mail. If the latter is evidence of notability, then everybody in that e-mail group would be notable (and, of course, they aren't). NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as obviously invented, per WP:CSD#A11. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vernilo

[edit]

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

The article is about a slang that shows not notability. There is not information to show that is should have a page. Reb1981 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : this aricle has about slang and no links and references. --cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article is pretty clearly some form of prank created by eighth graders for a joke. The user who made the article it seems has deleted their account within hours of creating this page. In any event, the slang appears to be localized to a single school in a single small city, making it incredibly non-notable. Thus, Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW

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) 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galena (singer)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable enough. St0n3 BG (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This request is so counter-productive and controversial. Galena is one of the biggest pop artists in Bulgaria and enjoys international fame outside Bulgaria as well, notably in Romania, Greece, Turkey, the Middle East, let alone the big Bulgarian diaspora throughout the world. Her big rivalry with Preslava, another big pop artist is the subject of so much media material. She has huge collaborations with notable Bulgarian and non-Bulgarian artists and very popular with DJs throughout Europe. She has won a great number of awards including as best artist. Consistent presence on Bulgarian TV and music stations. I don't know what blanking such an article would benefit English Wikipedia readers. Or do we actually want even absolutely famous Bulgarian artists to be confined to their "small corner" and not be heard of internationally. True, the article may need further citations, but this is true of almost all Bulgarian art subjects on English Wikipedia, and it is the easiest job to go to any Bulgarian artist page in English, slap it with a speedy deletion note and the article is gone in a day without discussion even. But that doesn't justify deleting an article itself, at least in case of Galena. Improve it instead with references. There are plenty of sources in Bulgarian at least. werldwayd (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An incredibly weak deletion rationale, if you want to call "not notable enough" a rationale. I strongly suspect this article was nominated with a check for foreign sources. If we rely solely on English sources, I would not have been able to write articles on notable French vaudeville singers. The same goes for this Bulgarian singer: she is well-known in Bulgaria but not as well in the US. However, that is not a reason to delete; in fact, it is a reason to find Bulgarian sources (unfortunately I cannot read Bulgarian as well as I do French) and expand this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - actually, more like an illegitimate AfD nomination. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep just on the basis of the interwiki list. Could use greater variety of sources. --Lockley (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than sufficient evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, not sure if this was a good faith nom, or not understanding criteria. Have left a message with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives on nom's Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:41, 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.