< 10 November	12 November >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyantific[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Available reliable sources that mention this artist only make passing mentions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harold C. Sox[edit]

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

BLP with no working references Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, invalid deletion rationale. Stale URLs don't make someone non-notable — once notable, always notable — and president of the American College of Physicians is a pass of WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question about his notability, but any article about a living person must have working references. Rathfelder (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So fix the references. AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Easily passes WP:PROF#C6 and the linkrot was easy to fix. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to withdraw now there are proper references. Rathfelder (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proportionate Representation[edit]

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

Delete The content of this article is simply false. This article claims that "proportional representation" refers to the parties while the term "proportionate representation" refers to the regional divisions. But this is not true. In reality, the terms "proportional" and "proportionate" are synonymous terms. This article refers to the Canadian Constitution of 1867. However, this reference doesn't support the claim that the term "proportionate representation" refers to the regional divisions. The constitution says: "The Number of Members of the House of Commons may be from Time to Time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed." If the term "proportionate representation" always referred to the regional divisions, then the constitution would simply say "proportionate representation", but it wouldn't explicitly say "proportionate representation OF THE PROVINCES". Markus Schulze 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: First, the above delete !vote is actually the nominator's reason for deletion.

The nominator's main claim ("The content of this article is simply false.") may be correct, but a lot of the detailed arguments for the claim seem either incorrect or overstated to me. "Proportional" and "proportionate" are not precisely synonyms. And in any case, what counts is the meaning of "proportional representation" and "proportionate representation." Proportional Representation is a well-known class of voting system. I'm not aware of "Proportionate Representation" functioning as an alternate name for "Proportional Representation" in that sense.

Surely when the 1867 Canadian Constitution uses the term "proportionate representation of the provinces" it is using "proportionate" in its usual sense as an adjective, not as a special technical voting term. Google scholar turns up lots of references to "proportionate representation of X" (eg, proportionate representation of minorities) that have nothing to do with regions or the mechanics of the voting system per se. So I agree with the nominator's conclusion that citing the 1867 Canadian Constitution does not, on its own, strongly support the content of the article. (But here again some of the nominator's reasoning is invalid: The constitution includes "of the provinces" because even if "proportionate representation" is understood to have the technical meaning described in the article, the term could still be ambiguous if "provinces" was not specified. So the inclusion of "of the provinces" proves nothing. Not to mention, the following could be true: the technical meaning described by the article is the present-day meaning of the term "proportionate representation," and that technical meaning had not yet arisen in 1867, but the term's plain-English usage in the 1867 CC is how the term came to have its current technical meaning.)

So... TLDR: Does anyone have any better evidence in support of the content of the article? Conversely, does anyone have evidence to support the nominator's claim that "Proportionate Representation" is routinely used as an alternate name for Proportional Representation voting systems in general? Gpc62 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is actually misunderstanding what the article is trying to say. "Proportionate representation" is not a synonym for "proportional representation" in the sense of being a voting system, but a much older historical term for the general concept that electoral districts should be roughly equal in population size — and therefore, in turn, that each province should have an overall number of electoral districts that corresponds to its population as determined by the principle of keeping the districts roughly equal in population. I'm not convinced that we actually need a whole standalone article about the term, but it's not what the nominator appears to think it is.
That said, I'm still down with the delete, because I don't see how the article could ever be much more than a WP:DICDEF of a term — the various geographic and political complications that prevent electoral districts from being strictly proportionate in all cases are better addressed in broader articles about the electoral politics of the individual jurisdictions that have districts than they are in a standalone article about "proportionate representation" as a topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is blatant violation of core Wikipedia policy of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and keeping it on Wikipedia can have costly consequence at the end because of the following reasons: The term is entirely sourced from one source, the IP user just saw the term and fascinated by it decided to create Wikipedia article on it. Google Scholar, Google news and search and JSTOR reveal no use of the term in the sense meant by the user. Also serch using "find" through PDF version of some constitutions and political science texts, revealed zero use of the term in the sense of this text, and twice use in the sense of Proportional Representation. The consequence of leaving this article is that once it pass here and with passing of time it can be quoted in press and the circular referencing will begin similar to earlier hoaxes on Wikipedia. There's no evidence that the constitution quoted used the term in this particular sense, and I so much agree with Gpc62 above, the term must be taken as used in normal adjective sense except if there's multiple Independent to prove otherwise, for which currently there's known. I am searching some print docs too, let us have other people's thoughts — Ammarpad (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOR. No academic sources on this term have been cited, and I can't find any myself. Sounds like a fun topic to write a Master's thesis on. Until then (and some other publications later), it does not meet our inclusion criteria. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most is copied, not factual. BeccaMcdougall (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 9:10, 14 November 2017 (GMT)[reply]

Delete - Original research. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Lockwood[edit]

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

BLP of a failed parliamentary candidate. Had brief notability as a candidate against the sitting Prime Minister at the time. Does not meet NPOL. Cowlibob (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates for parliament are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coverage from 2005 [1] I see later coverage as he was appointed as the independent expenses compliance officer- [2][3][4] though apparently only interim. Galobtter (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, being a competing candidate in the Prime Minister's constituency isn't a free notability boost, and campaign-related coverage doesn't get them over WP:GNG by itself because every candidate for anything could always show some — to consider his candidacy a special case because media coverage, we would have to see some proof that he got significantly more media coverage than most candidates could routinely expect to receive. The only potential notability here is his apparent stint as the expenses compliance officer — but even then, I'd still need to see more substance and sourcing about his work in that role than just a couple of media hits announcing his initial appointment. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/NPOL. South Nashua (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and the high bar SNG for politicians. Unelected politician, in other words. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, at best! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Cataldie[edit]

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

BLP with no external references Rathfelder (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any reliable 3rd party sources that give indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Palmer[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY having not played top flight football, I had a look at the citations, they aren't good enough for GNG either. Govvy (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:58, 12 November 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) 09:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though I made this article, I do believe it needs deleting as I made it at a time it seemed as though he was goiung to get a premier league match, with both Myhil and Foster injured, I was just wondering though that if this article is deleted is there any way I could hold onto this article so that if he does get a top tier game, I can just put the article back on Wikpedia. Rickyc123 (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shippable[edit]

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

no evidence for notability -- just press releases and notices of funding DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a nothing special internet company. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom, apart from funding and startup launching there is no more intensive coverage of the company by multiple sources. Starting company normally draw media attention due to notability of one or more person connected, but after that, time and ensuing events will determine whether the company is notable per se thus meeting WP:GNG or is merely mentioned due to inherited Notability of people related to it — Ammarpad (talk) 15:04, 14 November 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. Speedy deleted by Athaenara, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Contartese[edit]

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

Essentially promotional. the references are basically his own publicity, as given on various sites. The claims are not really supported even by the references used--for example, Forbes does not say he pioneered influencer marketing, but that he was "one of the first" which is a meaningless statement.

Article has been extensively edited by an undeclared paid editor [5] DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, with no indications of significance or notability and exclusively WP:SPIP sources. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 16 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Moldonado (aka Joe Exotic)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy general notability, biographical notability, or political notability. Article has no independent references. Google search for independent references for "Joe Moldonado" finds a different non-notable person. Google search for independent references for Joseph Moldanado finds only a vanity hit and nothing independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It is also a copyvio of his facbook profile. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Hunter[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG in lieu. His notability as an actor is staked on minor and guest roles, mostly as unnamed characters, and being in a beefcake calendar, and the referencing is stacked almost entirely onto unreliable sources like IMDb and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, except for a miniscule sprinkling of "local guy does stuff" coverage in his own hometown newspaper. And there's also a significant amount of reference bombing going on here, with many facts referenced to three or four of those weak sources apiece instead of just one good one. Nothing here, either in the sourcing or the substance, constitutes a reason why he would qualify for a Wikipedia article -- a person has to have had major roles, not walk-ons as "Cop #2", to pass NACTOR, and they have to have reliable source coverage in real media to support it, not just a bombardment of directory pages on IMDb or an IMDb wannabe. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person in question is a notable side actor. Annakoppad (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which you need to properly demonstrate by reliably sourcing the article to media coverage about his acting, if you expect that to be taken as an actual reason why the article would get kept. Bearcat (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small actors with a good track record cannot have a page on themselves. Even otherwise, the article passes WP:Basic. Also it does not suffer from lack of references." Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article." I will try and add more references. Please do not delete the page. Thanks in advance, Annakoppad (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge an article's keepability by the raw number of footnotes that it has — we judge its keepability by how many good references it has. Not all possible references are valid or notability-supporting ones: IMDb and blogs cannot be used to support notability, for instance. We require media coverage about his acting before we can deem the article to be properly referenced and keepable — and that's not what you've been showing. The referencing test is a matter of quality, not quantity — for example, an article that has just one footnote can be considered better referenced than an article that has 30 footnotes, if the 30 are all IMDB and blogs while the one is an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor roles with generic titles like "Firefighter" and "Pawnshop Man" don't satisfy NACTOR, nor do I see any significant press coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of super minor roles does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 16 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa District Badminton Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable organization. Stvbastian (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this local badminton org notable? It blatantly fails WP:CLUB, based on Gnews results. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability, for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article, is not attained by just asserting it, but by reliably sourcing that it has been the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG — but the references here are almost entirely to primary sources such the self-published content of the association itself, the clubs and teams that are members of it, and the provincewide parent league that it participates in — and it's not the subject of either of the only two things here that represent acceptable WP:GNG-assisting reliable sources, one of which just verifies the existence of an individual person named in the article without actually verifying the reason why he's named in the article, and the other of which is just an unretrievable deadlinked bare URL (which is the reason why I keep getting on people's backs around always providing the full citation details and not just a bare URL: weblinks die, and we can't retrieve a dead reference from an archival source if we don't know what its title was.) So none of this properly demonstrates the assertion that it's a notable organization, because notability depends on media coverage, and this has none that I can locate. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:56, 19 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Badminton Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:55, 19 November 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. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenfold[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG: lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources are mostly routine funding announcements. Rentier (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 11 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Critchlow[edit]

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

Appears to have played in the CFL, but I cannot find much information about him outside of reference/stats sources. Not sure if this person should have his own wikipedia page. Edday1051 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GRIDIRON having played 6 years in the CFL. Also passes WP:GNG; e.g., here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Played seven seasons in the CFL, and was a Grey Cup champion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. The nominator merely says he is unsure whether the subject should have an article. I wonder if he would consider withdrawing this now? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject played in the CFL. Lepricavark (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is never enough to pass the general notability guidlines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. But as a professional athlete he does pass the SNG for football players. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This type of article is exactly why we have SNGs. Subject's era was 40 years ago. Good luck finding sources online from that era. But considering the popularity and coverage of the CFL, along with the fact he had a six-year career including a stint on a championship team, it is very reasonable to presume sources exist. For example, I am comfortable presuming hard newspaper archives have the coverage necessary, its just that we are not going to ask a volunteer, Internet based project to go Winnipeg and Montreal to find them. RonSigPi (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the SNG for football players as a participant for a top-level professional team. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NGRIDIRON as above, already proven by the first source. Referring to the delete vote, from our permanently delete voting member, if additional sources are necessary WP:BEFORE suggests he could have looked for more. I have added a few. Trackinfo (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we normally keep CFL players as having achieved notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 18 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Techtix[edit]

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

Local college event without any claim for notability, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG, only very minor mentions in secondary sources. Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence at all for even significane--could have been a speedy a7 DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with DGG about WP:A7. The only reference in the article is to facebook. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Espektro[edit]

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

Local college festival without any evidence of notability to pass WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. The minor mentions I did find are in passing. Muhandes (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, so there is nothing to preserve (WP:DEL7 IAR and WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators). If an editor wants to pick this up, the place to start might be to add some info to the college article, and redirect to the college. Unscintillating (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG .Non notable college festival.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Christian study centers (United States). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consortium of Christian Study Centers[edit]

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

Christian Study Centers. are notable. The organization that coordinates them is not, and is adequately covered in the main article. Accepted from AfC in 2016 DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christian study centers (United States). Move that article back to Christian Study Centers since it is not about generic study centers but about those belonging to a particular organization. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per StarryGrandma. This is about a US organisation, probably US only. We do not need both an article on the centers generically and on the consortium that coordinates them, because they are essentially on the same subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SCORE! Mountain[edit]

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

promotional article for promotional program. Almost all of it written by editor with the same name as the individual devising the program. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:ADVOCACY essay on a nn concept. I also note that the article on the concept's creator, Ingrid Stabb, has been deleted multiple times. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable project and no wide coverage in reliable sources — Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Kishore Roy[edit]

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

BLP with only a reference to his own book. Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search did not uncover any evidence that this physician is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G7 and no keep !voters here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Mandelblatt[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only claim of notability is being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election whose primary hasn't even happened yet. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold office to clear that criterion, not just be a candidate in a primary -- but this makes no claim that she has any preexisting notability for any other reason, and it's not referenced to anything like the degree of reliable source coverage needed to deem her candidacy a special case like Christine O'Donnell's: this is based on a bunch of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of the broad overall phenomenon of women taking the political plunge because Trump, a sprinkling of purely routine local coverage of the primary race itself and her wedding announcement, and primary sources and blogs that cannot assist notability at all. Which means nothing here demonstrates that she's somehow more notable than the thousands of other people across the United States who are competing right now in primaries for next year's Congressional midterms. Of course, no prejudice against recreation a year from now if she wins the seat, but nothing here already gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, as she fails WP: POLITICIAN. If someone writes a neutral article about the 2018 election in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, then a redirect can be created. If she wins the seat, then a biography of her can be written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly as stated above. Clearly fails NPOL at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. User:CobaltBlue616 —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete (see below) She passes the WP:GNG because of consistent attention in national media such as US News and the Christian Science Monitor and Spanish-media, plus she's the leading Democratic challenger in an important swing district (which has been getting much attention nationally). She's an increasingly important national voice in Daily Kos. Considering that her likely opponent, Republican Leonard Lance, has a seriously spammy and lengthy promotional article, it's only fair to have both sides represented as per neutral points of view. She's not just a candidate but an activist for women's rights, with attention in the Washington Post. Meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia explicitly does not judge "we need an article" on the basis of "their opponent has one". (And also geez, looking at the article-to-reference ratio there that looks like WP:BOMBARDMENT to me.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, your first two refs are the same AP article -- and that's a passing mention. The Spanish language ref doesn't seem to be -- but that's also just a brief mention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "the leading challenger in a swing district" is not a notability criterion. To get a Wikipedia article, a person must either hold office, or be properly demonstrated as already having enough notability under some other criterion entirely independent of their candidacy — but the first isn't true yet, and the second isn't being demonstrated here at all. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to provide "equal time" to all candidates in an election: our responsibility is to have articles about holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them. And the fact that a person's existence gets namechecked in sources that are not about her, or that she's the bylined author of a Daily Kos piece, don't assist her notability either — she has to be the subject of a source, not just mentioned within a source whose subject is something else or the bylined author of the source, before that source counts a whit toward building a WP:GNG claim. And no, keeping an article about the incumbent but not the challenger is not a partisan bias just because Lance is a Republican and Mandelblatt is a Democrat — because in the very next district over, it's the Democrat who has an article and the Republican who doesn't, for exactly the same reasons. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think your arguments are good. Switching to delete. Let me say this though -- she's a strong candidate, and I'll bet she's the next congressperson after next year's congressional election.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm glad and as I don't see any point in stringing this out in this case, I'm going to place a ((db-author)) tag on the article accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 12 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moti Prakash[edit]

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

No coverage found when I searched. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No coverage? He gets an article in "Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999". His book "SE SABHU SANDHIYAM SAHA SEN" has an entry in the "Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature: Sasay to Zorgot". He is mentioned in another "Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature" as having started a literary vogue. He is featured in this presentation by the Sahitya Akademi. More? 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyLister[edit]

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

Classic UPE article; all the sources are WP:MILL/insufficient and the UPE editor has just spammed random references, none of which show notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability, clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a start-up sourced to its Crunchbase, blog and other user-submitted placements. No evidence of attained notability, whether by WP:NSOFT, WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Start up company with no claims to significance or importance. Some users just don't understand that a plethora of sources comprising fleeting mentions or routine reports of funding does not equate to notability. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentions, fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small seed stage startup with very little coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks too soon to me. No prejudice against userfying if someone wants to tuck it away and check back on it this time next year. GMG ^talk 16:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rasool Bux Dars[edit]

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

Vanity books writer. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a case for notability; existing references don't show it and the only additional I could find was trivial stuff like [6]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cognito Forms[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE, just a business listing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:58, 16 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiqar Halepoto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Still no coverage found. 1st nomination ended in no consensus. Note: MFrazbaig is blocked now who participated in previous debate. Störm (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Doesn't seem like WP:BEFORE was followed. A user being blocked has no bearing on the article itself. The sources covering the subject were demonstrated. Mar4d (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - Notability is met as an author, "water and environmental columnist and political analyst". There are numerous sources that can be cited. Some examples of sources:

Pakistan Tribune

NewsPakistan

Cited in this book with bio

Natl Library of Australia has his books

Thar Crisis book

TheNews.com

Staff report about his views

List of his work

Daily Messenger - guest author addressing the ceremony

South Asian Parliament: A Step Towards South Asian Integration - Syed Naveed Qamar* and Zulfiqar Halepoto**

Review: Zulfiqar Halepoto collected as many news pieces as well as friends stories and poems from Pakistan’s Urdu, Sindhi, English newspapers.

Nation.com referred to as one of the eminent intellectuals who also spoke on the occasion.]

India Times article - he's referred to as renowned writer.

One Pakistan article about Press Club launch ceremony of a book compiled by Zulfiqar Halepoto.

University of Sindh "famous alumni"

The article just needs to be expanded and cited. Cheers! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Definitely some gaps in the nomination, like why is NPOL mentioned? I found evidence in the previous AfD and the article that was not mentioned in the nomination, not to mention the previously mentioned absence of WP:BEFORE D1. I found the Express Tribune article provided in the previous AfD to show the broad attention given to this author, Express Tribune. Unscintillating (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muneer Ahmed Manik[edit]

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

No coverage found. Vanity books writer. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant online coverage - simply not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Martyr (band). (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Havoc in Quebec City[edit]

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

This article does not cite any sources and therefore parts of it may be false. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Martyr (band) - the article on the band is not too long to have an article on one of the band's video albums merged into it. Vorbee (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbee I adjusted your Martyr linkage to go to the band's article(instead of to the article about the word "martyr"). Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. DVD (or "album") fails all aspects of WP:NALBUM and also fails WP:GNG. Shearonink (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I see no particular reason to believe that any of this is false per se, but I also see no particular reason to believe that any of it is notable either. This isn't 2005 anymore; we don't automatically confer a notability freebie on every single album or concert DVD that a notable band ever released, if the release itself doesn't have its own standalone notability in its own right per WP:NMUSIC's criteria for the notability of recordings. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rexaura[edit]

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

Does not currently and probably cannot display notability. The WP:VG/S search finds only one reliable source, which is the RPS article presently in the article. Izno (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable mod, insufficient reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails notability ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:05, 18 November 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 16:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Japan)[edit]

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

We already have List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and so we don't need separate/sub articles - Sources so far in the article are extremely poor and unfortunately I cannot find any better, Fails NOTTVGUIDE (to a certain extent) and GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 14:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These lists are useless even if accurate, but without any sources prone to be totally off. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 16:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per:
Delete Outside of Oggy (which is basically a 'highest bidder wins' show in the global market), everything else is duplicative of the main CN list of and the exceptions can be mentioned in the main article. And both sources are disqualified; the first is a '.com/schedule' PRIMARY, the second is a blogger site. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Carrite (talk) 02:54, 17 November 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 09:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Anthology[edit]

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

Appears to be an unnotable organization. Little or no coverage other than local, niche journalism and self sources. Not that it's an indicator, but social media all has under 200 followers/likes ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it sounds like a good cause, but there are not enough sources to establish any kind of notability. WP:TOOSOON.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It appears to be a bit soon, but I find the nomination problematic. The number of social media follows is irrelevant, and I do not want to see it used in AfDs to evaluate notability. I don't see any "self sources" in the version that User:El cid, el campeador nominated for deletion. I'm not clear on what niche journalism is. Is orartswatch.org niche journalism because it covers the arts or local news because it only covers Oregon? The sourcing is not great, http://www.ksmoca.com/ksmoca-international-art-fair/ is a mere mention, http://littmanwhite.tumblr.com/post/165344872122/outside-of-the-lines-miss-anthology-september looks like a press release. On the other hand, http://www.orartswatch.org/miss-anthology-teaches-the-power-of-comics/ and http://news.streetroots.org/2017/09/08/miss-anthology-using-comics-create-change are sufficiently in-depth critical assessments to meet the requirements of the GNG. Mduvekot (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't warrant an actual response. There is nothing 'problematic' about nominating a page for deletion. Please stop. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Mduvekot says, "The sourcing is not great". The two sources stated to support keep are streetroots.org (not even a news reporting site, it's an advocacy site)and orartswatch.org. GNG is clearly not met by one reliable source.96.127.242.251 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not on par with the New York times, but I see no reason to believe that Street Roots is a not a reliable source. It is a professionally produced (print) newspaper, not an advocacy site. Mduvekot (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Streetroots.org is an advocacy organization, which produces a newspaper as part of its advocacy. That's not an objective source.96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to scrape by on GNG. Artw (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it scrapes by? Two weak sources are enough for GNG?96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More that two sources would be better, that's why it scrapes and not soars by. Not seeing the insufficiency in the sources you are. Artw (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how two sources in very minor newspapers gets someone an article on Wikipedia.96.127.242.251 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get an account, stick around, maybe you'll learn a thing or too. Artw (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around... lots of ip editors have experience. A two reference article is not notable.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TBH the only time I've seen users with experience making substantial edits under an IP it's been banned users or trolls pursuing a vendetta. Your milage may vary. 06:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

please be reasonable and kind in your comments. First of all, you have no idea who the poeple are behind IP's, just as I have no idea who you are in real life. Secondly, your insinuations are bad faith, which is both a failure of WP:AGF and also a sad attitude that is a subtle kind of bullying. I would suggest you read the guidelines. One is encouraged to open an account, but it's not necessary. IP's have exacly the same rights as account editors, except they cannot vote in RFA's and a few other minor things.96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As said above, scrapes by on GNG. Gpc62 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sri Lanka Air Force. Sandstein 09:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Air Force Special Air Borne Force[edit]

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

Unsourced, confused article. SABF is referred to exactly once on the Sri Lanka Air Force's own (quite detailed) web site. SABF appears to be a course that Air Force soldiers can take. SABF is not mentioned on Sri Lanka Air Force or any of its sub-pages. Delete unless it can be sourced with coverage from reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I believe we generally keep top-level commando units - even if they are small units. In this case this unit is the top-level airborne force (the air-force also has a Sri Lanka Air Force Regiment (and Sri Lanka Air Force Regiment Special Force) which focus on air-base defense) - which is tasked with VIP / counter-terror / covert ops. Sources do exist, e.g. - [7] [8] [9]. (+ seems there is coverage every time a training course is completed - often in conjunction with other units).Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the sources and information identified by Icewhiz and bearing in mind WP:CSB, I think there is enough here for an article that is suitable for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Sri Lanka Air Force page - FOX 52 (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tendency towards a merge with Sri Lanka Air Force. The shorter article is not too long for a merge to take place and it is currently labelled as an orphaned article. Vorbee (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sri Lanka Air Force, mostly due to the article's length. If it has been expanded further then we can have the standalone article again. Lorstaking (talk) 04:51, 12 November 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 09:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Lang[edit]

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

Doesn't seem significant. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since he's the most notable paintball player, if this gets deleted someone should nominate Colt Roberts. Ryan Greenspan, Alex Lundqvist and Alex Savino then. I actually think it reflects bad on our site that we can't reliably source a greatest player of a sport but that's how the cookie crumbles. GuzzyG (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; WP:BEFORE was not used. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources refer to him as the "greatest" paintball player, different media refer to him: [10] [11] [12] [13] paintball media: [14], french media (he has a frenchwiki article too): [15] [16]. He's not in the New York Times but not everything is. GuzzyG (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough sourcing exists to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be sufficient coverage in available sources to meet WP:N. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wow, who knew pro paintball was a thing? This seems to be one of the legends of the sport, recently retired after ten years at the top. Passes GNG from sources showing. There's more out there to be found in the ether... Carrite (talk) 02:58, 17 November 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 09:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2017 Catalonia attacks[edit]

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

Time to revisit this quote farm as it appears it has out-lived whatever use it once possessed -- so much so that no one bothered to rename it to couple with the main article! Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of information, and this collection of unanimous condemnations, rejected for the main page, is no exception. As with other similar articles I nominated, I have found the article on the incident sufficiently summarizes what is said here without WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; as a result, I do not advocate for a merge. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boiler plate condemnations quote farm of little value or notability.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiversity. Could be original research. Could fall under a variety of educational categories. Michael Ten (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is detailed referencing (89 inline cites), it is well-researched, provides links to international reactions which are not easily obtainable, as a group, anywhere else and aids those studying differences in how world entities view specific phenomena of this nature. If there is contention that such lists of reactions should not exist, then rather than singling out a handful of articles, this should have been a mass nomination of all entries at Category:International reactions or, to go even further, Category:Reactions. If, on the other hand, the contention is that other "Reaction" events are more notable than this event or that the structures of the other "Reaction" articles are more adroitly formed than the structure of this article, then we should be made aware of any deficiencies, so that needed improvements may be made. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet WP:LISTN. Consists of WP:PRIMARY materials – the reactions themselves, which are routine and do not stand out in any way. No encyclopedic relevance. Similar articles have been deleted in the recent past, such as:

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot that I renamed the page as consistency with previously titled "2017 Catalonian attacks", currently 2017 Barcelona attacks. If kept, the title should be reverted back to "Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack". No opinion yet on the list, which would be either duplicated or moved to Wikiquote. George Ho (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 Barcelona attacks. Does not stand as an independent page. Some content can be merged. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable reactions to a notable historic event. Plenty of good sourcing. Third party sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable Kanatonian (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate quote farm of no actual value. Anything in it of ACTUAL value can be quoted in the main article. --Calton | Talk 12:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't put it any better than those above - It's nothing more than a quote farm and these condemnations are essentially boilerplates - Unless someone condemned it in a way that was I guess notable then fine but all of these quotes are boilerplates and aren't encyclopedic information. –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a quote farm, plus WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:SYNTH. Important comments should be merged to main article. Lorstaking (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE. Unlike other more fully developed reaction articles, like Reactions to the Catalan independence referendum, 2017 or Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, this article is probably too indiscriminate and insignificant to be included in the encyclopedia. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 04:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:QUOTEFARM. HastyBriar321 (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:HastyBriar321 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:DisuseKid. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is not independently notable. This information could be included on the 2017 Catalonia attacks page, but as a standalone page serves only as a quote list. Something like this could be hosted on Wikiquote, but doesn't meet our inclusion criteria here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:31, 14 November 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 09:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kesari Tours[edit]

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

Based entirely upon notices and promotional articles. It is highly misleading to say it won the national tourism award: there are 37 categories each year, some with multiple divisions-- and it won in only one of them. .. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Mr. DGG, You are actually misleading here voters by calling it misleading. The company has received the National Tourism Award twice. The prestigious award is given by Ministry of Tourism (India), Government of India. The award is present by The President of India, but sometimes by Minister of Tourism or Honorable Loksabha speaker. (You may google about National Tourism Awards)

Kesari Tours was aslo awarded the Best Outbound Tour Operator for the year 2011-12 by Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra. Apart by awards and recognition from Government, the company has received several corporate award. It clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Here is the complete list of awards,

The Brand of the Year award 2017, by World Consulting & Research Corporation (WCRC) "Kesari Tours gets award". Deccan Chronicle. January 13, 2017.

National Tourism Awards 2014-15, by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India "MoT Organises "National Tourism Awards For The Year 2014-15"". Traveltrendstoday. August 1, 2016., bestowed by Pranab Mukherjee, the President of India."Gujarat chosen Best State in National Tourism Awards 2013-14". Netindian.in. September 18, 2015.

National Tourism Awards 2013-14, by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India (http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=127016)

Best Corporate Incentive Tour Operator 2015, by India Travel Awards Ghadge, Rajesh (October 16, 2015). "India Travel Awards honors the stalwarts of travel industry in glittering ceremony". Goaprism.

Best MICE Operator by India Travel Awards "List of Award Winners". Indiatravelawards.in.

Best Outbound Tour Operator for the year 2011-12 by Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, Government of Maharashtra "Tours Operators - Kesari Tours". Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation.

Abacus International Award 2007 "Kesari: Doing it differently". Travelbizmonitor.com. January 6, 2009.

What more you want? Please note article has been approved by Article for Creation. I request voters to please check and verify the facts and recognition Kesari has received. Do not blindly vote. The article is enough notable to meet the Wikipedia guidelines.--49.35.14.20 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it did not receive the national tourist award. I checked these in detail before I made the nomination, because of my experience with similarly promotional articles in this and other industries. Just for the national tourist awards itself, there are 59 different categories of awards each year. One year it won 2 out of the 59, the other year 1. Looking at the other awards listed , most similarly come in various categories or specifications. They are in a single one out of multiple categories, or a single one out of multiple states. They are all furthermore for one or two years out of many--the normal practice in industries such as this is to have things work out so that every large firm wins some awards. It's the structure of any industry which depends on promotionalism and advertising that there be prizes for everyone. The way they have been listed here is deceptive, and the fact that they are being listed deceptively is one of the indications of promotionalism. Promotionalism and PR rely on such methods; but we are an encyclopedia, and that does not work here. Businesses promote themselves according to their standards, and we write an encyclopedia according to ours. I am not blaming you personally--if I were writing advertising, I would write it as you do. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agree with DGG - these awards and the way that they are presented are actually reasons *not* to have the article on an encyclopedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable tour company, No evidence to establish notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is reasonable argument above and further highlight the importance of why Wikipedia policies/guidelines(or RULES) are not rigid. The company did indeed received an award but didn't meet WP:CORP nor WP:GNG as there's no significant, sustained coverage of the company in details. Thus the attempt to use only awards to argue its keeping is evidence that there is no significant coverage as the company is not notable thus the award perfectly serves as reason not have the article as reasoned above. Wikipedia is not place to display awards received by company. — Ammarpad (talk)
Delete: I reinstated the 2009 TravelBiz Monitor item which had been a reference in an early draft of this article, as it is probably the most substantial coverage. However neither it nor the various trade awards seem to me to be sufficient evidence that this is more than a company going about its business and is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Mr. @DGG:, You said that Kesari did not receive such award, which is totally misleading and false statement made by you. Again I'm saying that Kesari has received the National Tourism Award (by the Ministry of Tourism (India), Government of India.) Though given reference is verifiable but still if you want, I can send you the images of the award certificate, trophy and award events pictures. I would request you to provide your Email address.

If a 33 years old company with the company has no importance if the company is not doing well in his respective field. Why would the Government of India and the Government of Maharashtra or any Indian Ministry recognise the company? Why would they award the company?

Request you to kindly be considerate and understand the fact that the article is not resorting to any kind of advertising and promotions. Not a single word of the article is sounding promotional as per guidelines. complying the Wikipedia guidelines, the article was submitted for Article for creation, and it was approved from there just because it was notable and complies the Wikipedia guidelines.

I request to Mr. @My name is not dave: who accepted the article under AFC, to check that does he also think that the article is not notable. --2405:204:9116:20A0:C6DA:6B67:F8A0:621C (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Why would the Government of India and the Government of Maharashtra or any Indian Ministry recognise the company? Why would they award the company?" Because it is the purpose of the relevant government agencies to promote tourism, and they will therefor cooperate with any legitimate tourist related business, not just the notable ones. Among the ways they cooperate is by issuing awards to all of them in turn, in as impressive a manner as they can arrange. Not every legitimate business is notable, in this or any field. I could equally ask why the company would want a WP article, and again, it is in order to promote their business. But we have a different purpose than the Ministry of Tourism. Passing AfC means that the reviewer thinks it likely to pass AfD., not that they think it is certain to pas AfD. No reviewer is always right about their prediction. The test is whether it does in fact pass AfD, where multiple people discus it. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You know what, this is a good try, but after a second look, taking into account the concerns of DGG and editors above, the sources are not adequate. For the IP above, I will list the sources and their issues:
- [17] -- not an independent source. Written by the founder of the company.
- [18] -- the subject is not focused on just Kesari, there are two companies spoken about here, and therefore Kesari is not the exclusive subject of the reference.
- [19] -- press release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- [20] -- this source is good, if it wasn't overly promotional.
- [21] -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a mention of the company.
- [22] -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine company profile.
- [23] -- the subject of the reference weaves between the founder and the company itself.
As I said above, this is a good try, but the references used are not solid. Disagreements happen all the time in any place, and what one might say 'yes' to, another might say 'no'. I've gone back and reviewed my position, and it is clear that I did not thoroughly consider the appropriateness of the sources, or, in short: I'm wrong. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:34, 17 November 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. Little useful discussion. Renomination possible. Sandstein 09:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JKYog[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Coverage of the organization consists of press releases, non-independent coverage in questionable sources, and passing mentions in a few other sources. - Mr X 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Saubhagya Nayak:

JKYog is a worldwide organization having its main centers in Dallas, USA. The organization and it's activities are mentioned in many key newspaper and independent websites including the followings:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/irving/2012/07/12/founder-of-jkyog-will-visit-df

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/irving/2013/07/23/the-swami-and-the-mayor

https://www.kakeinitiative.org/about-us

https://indiacurrents.com/jkyog-annual-fundraiser/

http://www.indoamerican-news.com/swami-mukundananda-to-visit-houston-7-mindsets-for-success-in-life-and-beyond/

https://indiacurrents.com/swami-mukundananda-talk-yoga-meditation-7-mindsets-success-life-beyond/

http://india-herald.com/radha-krishna-temple-opens-in-dallas-p5832-56.htm

Dallas morning news, which is an important news paper in DFW area has several article published on JKYog. Apart from these news papers there are sevaral other webites and press releases that mention about JKYog acitivities.

If there are questions on any specific section of the JKYog page, please let us know and we can provide more evidences/references.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More news paper referenes of JKYog added into the weki pages: IndiaPost which is a leading news paper in Bay Area, USA has several articles published on JKYog. Those articles are added into the wiki references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.204.79 (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:JKYoG is a non profit organization and performing many charitable activities US and worldwide. Keep this page to make aware of its charitable work within our society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jati patra (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 November 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 09:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Hernandez Gonzalez[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity article of a Chiliean self-styled poet that doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or pass the GNG. Did a good faith effort search (in both English and Spanish) for news articles, books, et cetera. He appears to be unpublished. The only websites I could find were his LinkedIn, Facebook, and the self-published sources listed herein. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Love,_Heartache_and_Other_Stories, by the same editor and likewise self-published/unreferenced, is the only article that links to this one.)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence he has risen to notability as a writer. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 14 November 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 09:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talmadge Lee Carter[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since February of 2011. I didn't find much, if any, evidence of coverage that would demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly standard US judge. This could be improved but I doubt the subject would become much better than it is right now. And there are always problems with trying to pass on notability from cases a judge has presided over. He doesn’t seem to have invented any important principles or written any books. Dysklyver 10:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor low level member of the judiciary. Emeraude (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a county court judge might get a person into Wikipedia if he can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it's not a role that confers automatic inclusion rights just because he exists. As well, this is written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that cannot support notability rather than to reliable ones. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 11 November 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 09:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BEAM (Platform)[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a CU confirmed sock in violation of the terms of use. PROD was contested by a block evading IP. Article has previously been G11'd under a previous title, but taking it to AfD this time since the language is slightly less glossy-brochure. As a promotional TOU violation, the question of notability doesn't come into play: it has no right to be assessed under that guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing a recent start-up's proposition, sourced with routine funding announcements and instances of similarly-worded coverage. I am seeing no evidence of attained notability by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely promotional . I would have used G11, but I respect the nom's decision not to. (I doubt it's notable either, but in the circumstances, that's a relatively less critical failing) DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 15 November 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 09:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Millar (company)[edit]

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

primarily an advertisement--no substantial sources DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and a half; fails WP:CORP. Ghits turned up nothing but online clothing retailers. Only one notable source (Golf Digest), but merely a press release of the takeover of the brand by Richemont. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company, originally with a mound of promotional matter which was cleaned away by another editor shortly afterwards. The references (both at that version and the smaller set now) are routine announcements. I am not seeing evidence of notability. (A redirect to the page on Richemont, which mentions this brand, may be a possibility.) AllyD (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 12 November 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 09:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western Role-Playing Video Games[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Article is just a random listing of video games thrown together based on the opinion of article creator. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted several similar lists such as List of Japanese role-playing games by genre, List of Japanese role-playing games on PC should also be considered for deletion.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely indiscriminate directory of game titles. Ajf773 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We would just have a category for this kind of thing, if it was worth having. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a directory in the article namespace, and apart from that this page does not meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia in any way. Dark-World25 (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A pointless, unreferenced list ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories exist for the exact reason, if this is even important enough to mention. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see why we would categorize or list RPG video games together based only on whether they were from a Western country rather than something more specific (such as the country of origin itself). But regardless of the merits of this classification, categories and lists both exist for overlapping yet complementary reasons. See WP:NOTDUP, WP:LISTPURP, and the preamble to WP:NOTDIR. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw that category already exists for this, this is both duplication which add no little value to an encyclopedia and also clash with what Wikipedia is not; WP:DIRECTORY — Ammarpad (talk) 18:46, 15 November 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 Userfy - clear consensus to delete, creator wants to userfy, no harm in the latter. Giant Snowman 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kinnear[edit]

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

He has never played or managed at a fully professional level, so he fails WP:NFOOTY, and there is no indication of sufficient in-depth coverage to meet the GNG. Looking at the National League table at the moment, he stands a good chance of managing in a fully pro league next season, but there's a long way to go yet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I feel like the status on the nomination makes a very good point, that by May, he may well have a place on Wikipedia if he can get the club promoted. There isn't much information, so a delete may be the right idea, but also the article shouldn't really be lost to be re-written Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- TBF, the single sentence which the article currently consists of wouldn't be a huge chore to re-create..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question I did a google search and saw a few things so I decided to have a go at getting his article up to scratch, does it pass WP:GNG now? Govvy (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only known for playing football, so he must pass the football notability guidelines. A few scattered references cannot overcome this inherent failure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, that is not how the football notability guideline works. Somebody who is "only known for playing football", who fails NFOOTY but passes GNG, is notable. Please bear that in mind for future discussions so you don't keep making this erronious argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see that he passes WP:NFOOTY. As per nom, does not appear to have played or managed in a fully professional league. Eagleash (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am curious why people are looking towards NFooty before GNG, GNG should be reviewed first, Upon my google search I found some sources from the BBC, The Guardian (publisher in the Observer newspaper) and an article published in The Independent newspaper, also posted online. This is national coverage about this manager and there are more articles online for the local area of Dover. Although not hugely significant coverage, this in my view should be enough to pass GNG. He seems significant enough to the club of Margate to mention him on their history. 1, And does seem a very interesting figure to the history of Dover Athletic. This should all be taken into account for GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Claim of sources to meet WP:GNG. Govvy, please link the sources you found, since no two people's searches are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Ansh666:, I added all the references I found on the article, In my personal opinion, I feel I've seen enough to pass GNG, it seems other disagree with my findings know. Govvy (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the GNG is utterly useless at assessing the importance of a sports figure to the point where the star football player on the local secondary school's team is all but sure to pass the GNG in some countries, and we obviously never include them. NFOOTY while not written as an exclusionary guideline is in practice applied as one, because otherwise the acceptance criteria would depend on how journalists in your place of residence cover sports. The correct reading of NFOOTY is to assume that the sourcing that can be found for someone who does not pass it would be considered trivial in nature, and that only coverage outside of their sports career really should be assessed in counting towards it. That's if you want to think all Wikipedia policy is consistent. The easier way is to realize that it isn't, that in practice NFOOTY is exclusionary, and apply IAR, which is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, something that the GNG is not. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @TonyBallioni: I really didn't understand your argument for deletion, General Notable guidelines tells you to source, this article isn't about a footballer, it's about a football manager at the top tier of non-league football in England. Of course he fails NFOOTY, the whole argument is about establishing GNG after that. Three sources are provided in the article from some of the biggest news agencies in the UK. Govvy (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY applies to managers as well. My argument is simple: any sports figure who has breathed and made money off of it in a Western country will pass the GNG. Full stop. That is why it is useless in virtually every sports related discussion. The GNG does not guarantee inclusion, it is a rebuttable presumption of inclusion and we can decide to not include a subject for any reason we want: Wikipedia has no rules. I am rebutting it by appealing to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE: if we include him, we have to include everyone at his level because they will have similar coverage, which really is a question for the football project, not this AfD. If we started regularly evaluating whether or not someone who failed the sports criteria passed the GNG it would be impossible to delete any Western sports figure. There is no significant coverage not related to his career, and we know that his career does not make him notable. As such, he gets deleted because we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I still don't quite understand your argument, all that's written is about his management career in non-league football with some references from national coverage media. Not many managers get national coverage media in non-league football, so you won't have many articles like this. I see non of the problems you are talking about. Govvy (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:NFOOTY failure. I agree with Tony that GNG is often useless for football bios; I could quite easily write a well-sourced article on players at the eighth level in England, but I don't because we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and NFOOTY is that line. Number 5 7 22:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eneko Eizmendi[edit]

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

AfD'ed by own creator. Although subject fails WP:NFOOTY, it's not clear if he passes WP:GNG or not. MYS77 ^✉ 19:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete football players have to pass the notability guidelines for football players to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep? Found all these results from a Google quick search (please see here https://www.google.pt/search?q=eneko+eizmendi&oq=eneko+eizmendi&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2723j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). --Quite A Character (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, wikiscrapes, transfermarkt (non RS stat site), twitter, instagram, a couple of stat pages that show he fails NFOOTBaLL...how many pages in before I find something that indicates keep? ClubOranje^T 06:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the first page alone, a newspaper article (https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/pontevedra/2017/01/24/extremo-eneko-eizmendi-nuevo-jugador-pontevedra/00031485270824166813585.htm, reliable, La Voz de Galicia). Then, these three after I decided not to be so lazy and typed "Eneko Eizmendi+carrera(career in Spanish)" (http://www.mundodeportivo.com/guipuzcoa/20170113/413305754725/un-viaje-por-carreteras-secundarias.html, http://diariodepontevedra.galiciae.com/noticia/712397/cuestion-de-tiempo-y-punteria and http://www.farodevigo.es/deportes/pontevedra/2017/01/24/eneko-eizmendi-elegido-reforzar-equipo/1610645.html, the first, Mundo Deportivo, is quite reliable and details his career at great length). --Quite A Character (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you quote the articles, or add references to the page, because when I click your google link I get: en.wiki, es.wiki, transfermarkt.co.uk, transfermarkt.de, twitter, soccerway, squawks, YouTube, instagram and yazda.org (a wiki-scrape). Google knows I'm not in Portugal and dishes me up what it thinks is more "relevant" to me. ClubOranje^T 10:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll give it another week for more people to judge the sources that have been dug up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look to see if he might pass NFooty, but he seems to have only played non-league Spanish football. I am not sure the citation coverage is enough, it doesn't help that it's in Spanish on English wikipedia. This seems to fail GNG on English wiki to me. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. (Nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milyang No clan[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources that verify this clan exists. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Atsme, how are you doing? In Korea, Milyang is often called Miryang. The current source in the article[24] contains reference to the Miryang No clan, in other words, to the Milyang No clan. This should have been clarified in the article for reader support I guess. More sources can be found if one searches for the mirror name. Wikipedia being a gazetteer, I would prefer to Keep this article on this clan, unless you prefer otherwise. I'll go by your discretion. Warmly, Lourdes 02:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add the sources needed to substantiate notability and also update the article. If you do that, Lourdes, I will be happy to withdraw my nom. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Korean Studies 밀양노씨 密陽魯氏. Academy of Korean Studies.

Modern Korean (한국어)

인구분포 2000년 통계청이 발표한 결과에 의하면 밀양노씨는 391가구 총 1,268명이 있는 것으로 되어 있다.

English

Statistics Korea research held in 2000, the number of Milyang No clan was 1268.--Spirit of criticism (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme hello once more, I've filled in the article with some material from the available references. Thanks, Lourdes 08:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wrong forum. AfD is not for merge proposals. Discussion may be continued at Talk:Alejandro Jodorowsky#Merge from Psychomagic (psychotherapy). Michig (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychomagic (psychotherapy)[edit]

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

Merge and redirect to Alejandro Jodorowsky. MrBill3 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alejandro Jodorowsky and delete. Does not warrant a separate article. An article about this as a form of psychotherapy would require far better sourcing than a few books by Jodorowsky himself. Described as one of his activities is about right. Gpc62 (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alejandro Jodorowsky. No need to merge - there's already mention of this self-coined term in that article. The DAB page Psychomagic may also need to be modified, dependant upon the outcome of this !vote. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to redirect as I very much doubt anyone will be looking for an article on this "therapy" anyway. Last I looked, Jodorowsky was a film director, not a therapist or a scientist. This is self-indulgent twaddle. Famous _dog (c) 11:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's WP:CHEAP, and there is no alternative target. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jasper High School (Plano, Texas). Sandstein 09:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Chilton Jasper[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything that supports the claim that he was a "Confederate general" (of a single company?), and his business career is not particularly notable as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are we here? Notability? If so, where are the WP:BEFORE D1 source search results? Verifiability? What does WP:DEL7 say? Unscintillating (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Far from being irrelevant, this man had a school named after him [25], is 'probably' a Confederate general, and meets WP:SOLIDER if he is. Dysklyver 14:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Confirmed not a general and therefore not notable under subject specific guidelines, fails WP:GNG, the article is clearly inccurate, although it does appear he had a school named after him. Dysklyver 15:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on WT:MILHIST. Dysklyver 14:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coment He definitely didn´t serve as Confederate general in the war; though I can´t rule out any possible militia connection for sure. But the only time I can quickly find him is in muster rolls of Company C of the 6th Kentucky Cavalry in February 1863 where he is listed as Private. But his wiki-article said that he found a post-war veterans organisation - loads of people were made "generals" in those and that led to several people being titled as Confederate generals without ever substantially being such. Family lore and press coverage with public interest and agenda made this even worse. So either other signs or notability should be found or the article should be deleted. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having stuff named after you is not necessary indicative of notability. Notability is extensive coverage multiple reliable sources, which this articles does not have nor could I find when searching the web. Did not even find a sinlge book mention of him.★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not meet WP:SOLDIER based on rank if there is no record of him holding the rank. I am unaware of ANY circumstance in which a general would serve in a lettered company.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasper High School (Plano, Texas). You guys are focusing a bit too much on the "Confederate General" bit - this guy lived for 60 years after the war, and did quite a bit (including founding a bank - Plano National Bank). However, sources I do find on his activities as a business man and figure in Plano Texas - [26] [27] [28] - do not seem to pass GNG - however he might pass on sources I do not see (this is the sort of period where archive access is needed, and not everything is digitized).Icewhiz (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasper High School (Plano, Texas). School is definitely named after him. [29] Fails WP:SOLDIER. Agree with General Longstreet that he most likely was one of those people accorded the accolade "general" after the war (in his case, possibly after 1996). (But to be fair, that's about as legitimate as anything the Confederacy ever did.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- As I read the article, I asked myself what he did that was notable. He was clearly a significant local business man in his time, and would have been completely forgotten but for the school's name. To my mind he was NN as a soldier, as a local banker, and as an oil entrepreneur. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly he was not completely forgotten, given that the school was named after him half a century after his death. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major local figure. Founding a bank, companies, civic leader. It would not be surprising if he had sources to pass GNG (which at the moment I do not see).Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, we can't keep articles in the hope that sources will surface, we need to actually know they exist. Like I said above, I could not find any mentions of him in any google book searches at all.★Trekker (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found some, see my !vote, but not enough. You have to be careful with middle names, and in this case he seems to be referred to as T.C. Jasper most often.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Merge seems to cover the issues for now. Unscintillating (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the notability test qualifies this topic as a standalone, the encyclopedia is better organized with this topic as a standalone than as a merge. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there is a lot of information about him on newspapers.com under a search of "T. C. Jasper",[30] and some as "Thos. C. Jasper". On newspaperarchive.com, I find his June 16, 1924 obituary in the McKinney Daily Courier Gazette[31] which gives a bit more information - one useful piece of information in that is that he lived in Mt. Salem, Kentucky (this information helps me be sure that the Kentucky newspaper results are about this T. C. Jasper). I am not unhappy with a merge outcome, but acknowledge that his career was covered in newspapers, not exclusively local, and he received coverage over a long period. Also, I think his career as a pioneer businessman is significant, both in Kentucky and Texas, and all together I think there is enough to suggest that he is a suitable subject for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, all the newspapers just mention him in passing. That's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I agree this is a weak case, here are three articles about Jasper, albeit from a small local paper: resignation as cashier in 1913[32], golden wedding anniversary in 1924[33], business deal in 1924[34]. The wedding anniversary is the most about him, and, like obits, such an article could/should be discounted a bit. Also, looking more closely, I am only finding articles in any detail in local papers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jasper High School (Plano, Texas). Just a minor local businessman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 15 November 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 09:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini (mail/news)[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:V. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence at all for any possible notability -- nor even significance. If it were a company not a product, it would be a clear A7 speedy

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 09:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrament ov Impurity[edit]

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

Fails WP:Band local band, no radio airplay, no major record deal, no national concert tours, no national TV appearances, no media coverage. Rogermx (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Only one notable site (Portland Mercury) and that contained only an outdated concert listing. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:21, 11 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: Ben Grimm and Logan[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find sales info or reviews for this mini. Obviously an insignificant and inconsequential footnote in the franchise. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, purely in-universe comic book precis. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 11 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: Reed Richards[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find sales info or reviews for this mini. Obviously an insignificant and inconsequential footnote in the franchise. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, purely in-universe comic book precis. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the arguments made above. Dunarc (talk) 23:36, 11 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Fantastic Four: The Storms[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find sales info or reviews for this mini. Obviously an insignificant and inconsequential footnote in the franchise. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, purely in-universe comic book precis. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, unsourced. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Same article creator for WP:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted by others there is no evidence of notability and no sources for the content. Dunarc (talk) 23:33, 11 November 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 09:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation, almost entirely WP:PLOT. No evidence in searches of passing WP:GNG - all search results are to fan-created content, pricing guides, eBay, etc. No evidence that this had any broader impact outside of the series named. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Google News link, above, shows ongoing RS coverage sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of a The Hollywood Reporter article speculating about a possible movie deal "reportedly in the works", those GNews results are blogs and other fan-generated content. None appear to be true RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Wire, Uproxx, Comic Book Resources, IGN, Collider (website), and Screen Rant are all non-RS? I find your above statement problematic. I know Google News content can vary slightly from place to place, but I'm seeing things that are entirely inconsistent with your statement. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Jclemens that reliable sources mention the series, but I haven't been able to find coverage beyond trivial mentions in articles speculating about a potential film featuring both teams. It's unlikely than any eventual film will have much in common with this miniseries aside from - maybe - a name. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, purely in-universe comic book precis. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails in the sourcing department, but might be a merge candidate for a limited comic book series list. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: same article creator for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Before_the_Fantastic_Four:_The_Storms ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:09, 11 November 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.