< 13 November	15 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 redirect to Mortar (masonry)#Polymer cement mortar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MagneLine[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of notability for this brand of cement; the only reference is a press release by an importer, and all I find online is another press release by them. The article was PRODded already, but the PROD was removed by the creator (in an edit that did improve the article) so I don't believe it can be rePRODded. The PROD replaced a nomination for speedy deletion as pure promotion, which I don't believe is applicable in its current state (although others may disagree), and I find no other applicable speedy deletion criterion, since it doesn't fall into one of the categories for "no claim of significance". Yngvadottir (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Nothing notable about polymer-treated concrete. You can buy the additive in Home Depot. Rhadow (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortar (masonry)#Polymer cement mortar, which is the generic name for this product. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:31, 21 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. Proposing editor should maybe take the time to read some of the feedback provided on their talk page rather than immediately deleting it. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarapurana[edit]

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

This article might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines ReeceTheHawk (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if this is independently suitable for an article, but it is one of two parts of Mahapurana (Jainism), which is certainly suitable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up plenty of sources. "Uttara Purana" seems to be the more common spelling. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are about a bazillion mentions in Google books. Notability vbery clearly established.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Topics as such are usually notable whereas most bio articles are not. NikolaiHo^☎️ 06:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough Soucres are avialable for Uttara Puran. Somebody just need to spend some time on it Anmolbhat (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most surviving (and some not surviving) texts from more than 1,000 ago are notable. Given the large amount of google-books and google-scholar references to this one - it is clearly notable as well.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Jenkins[edit]

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

Not notable. Simply being named as a contributor on a few research papers as an undergraduate (and being in a picture on a website) is not a credible claim of importance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources contribute to Notability. Three are research papers he has co-authored and are not coverage of him. And a caption on a photo is barely a passing mention. MB 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: Wikipedia is not Linkedin ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG/NACADEMIC. South Nashua (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:22, 21 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. per WP:SK #1. Requiring more sourcing is not a reason for deleting and the "sources" -- there is one -- is very clearly identified and linked. I am also going issue a warning to this problem nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

François Poulin de Francheville[edit]

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

This article needs more citations for verification, and its sources remain unclear. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 22:45, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Historians Association[edit]

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

Not notable, No working references. Mostly futurology. May not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely hoax.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~Delete ~~as yet.~~ If it is a hoax, the article itself would appear not. "International Historians Association" has non social media google hits but I have not checked to see if they are the same organisation here. Importantly though, a trustee for "International Historians Association" was a registered business entity for Australian taxation purposes until 24 April 2017. I think existence is satisfied but not necessarily GNG. Also note creation was by a now indefinitely blocked account. Aoziwe (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete. Readily fails GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot see how this can be notable, even if it does actually exist. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; not verifiable. No working references, and none found on Google search. An unclear case for notability even if the facts in the article were supported by references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 20 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. Though if the nomination wants to consider making something like List of improvised firearms to merge these articles to, that is a separate issue that does not need to be resolved at AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galkatas[edit]

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

This stub, along with several others, really belong together in Improvised firearm Anmccaff (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Galkatas definitely meets GNG - sources are evident in a BEFORE (which are absent in the low quality article). The question here really is about merging to improvised firearm while leaving a redirect to the section there. Paltik, Galkatas, and Improvised firearm (which seems to be focused on the really improvised side as opposed to more organized low-scale production by blacksmiths and metal shops) all need improvement. I'm undecided beyond this not being a delete (so keep or merge).Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Has characteristics that are separate from other metal shop production run in other areas of the world. Was used in Sri Lankan conflicts. improvised firearm is a poor merge target as it focuses on truly improvised weapons and not weapons produced by gunsmiths at metal shops. If we have an article on every Colt and Carl Gustav model, we can have an article on a notable regional weapon industry.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned by Icewhiz, this passes the GNG. It might or might not be merged later, but for now, keep it should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem I see with this and similar articles is they will tend to develop separately -needlessly, and as POV Forks. Contemporary firearms range from open large scale manufacture down to clandestine individual production, with a wide range of expertise as well. This is, so to speak, a three-dimensional model, not a binary split. Anmccaff (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is simply the Sri Lankan word for home made gun. It is not a recognized English language term and has no meaning outside was the Sri Lanka.--RAF910 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Icewhiz passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 21 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 redirect to United Soccer League#Expansion clubs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USL Atlanta[edit]

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

Without additional evidence of notability, this seems like it's WP:TOOSOON for this team to have it's own page, based on WP:NCORP and WP:NSPORT Comatmebro (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every other upcoming expansion team gets one. Why would this one be different? DSM FC (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Soccer League#Expansion clubs for now, until the club is able to establish its notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy If DSM FC is so certain about these clubs he should of kept them on his userspace until they have done enough to qualify for inclusion on wiki. Govvy (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Bushranger. Giant Snowman 16:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - insufficient notability for a standalone article, but a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if you delete it, but it's bizarre to take issue with this when we have the exact same pages for Bimringham, Austin, and Memphis and articles for several other clubs that haven't played yet.DSM FC (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing those out. I'll go and WP:BOLDly redirect them promptly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems the article has already been turned into a redirect to USL Atlanta at the time if this post. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Patrolling admin comment page was moved from USL Gwinnett County to USL Atlanta. I have updated the nomination. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My redirecting the other WP:TOOSOON as-yet-unnamed teams were reverted "per WP:REDYES" (which I don't quite understand, since there were no red links involved). @Walter Görlitz:, is that relevant to this discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or delete all of the fourth-division teams who have had less press than this team. Sorrt, REDYES was an error. They are a second division team and as many of the editors above have stated, that makes the team notable. Double-standard much? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I don't see anybody above stating that...and the teams do not yet exist, that is the entire point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Soccer League#Expansion clubs for now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Connor[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citations although a few seem a bit thin, if the top tier in Ireland was fully pro, I would say keep, but because it isn't he fails NFooty. Govvy (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2017
Keep top tier in Ireland is turning pro. Connor plays for a team which has recently turned fully professional with the supply of 52 week full time contracts to its players so he does qualify — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs)

reply Where is your evidence for the league turning pro? Govvy (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Shamrock Rovers and Dundalk have since joined Cork in being fully professional. The league will soon be fully pro so keep! http://www.the42.ie/john-caulfield-52-week-contracts-3654376-Oct2017/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately as that article says "While 52-week contracts are becoming increasingly more common again, particularly at clubs like Dundalk and Shamrock Rovers, they remain the exception rather than the rule", it pretty conclusively proves that the league isn't fully professional.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:20, 15 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) 16:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ there is tons of League of Ireland players who haven't made an appearance in the "fully pro" leagues as you say. The fully pro league argument is thin and these pages are very useful for League of Ireland fans especially during the transfer window to find out first hand info on players. These pages should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFCsupporter2018 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:C543:2300:A850:D861:A1FF:83DD (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — 2A02:8084:C543:2300:A850:D861:A1FF:83DD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep good keeper with bright future. Page should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ he also has already achieved a lot at international level and league of Ireland. Page should be kept. Silly to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Should be kept bright future and good level — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.118.62 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, you may not !vote more than once. As this is not a simple majority vote, endlessly adding "keep" and a comment that isn't grounded in WP policies isn't going to sway the outcome, especially when the closing admin can see that the comments are all from the same person..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 21 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hayat[edit]

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

I've been absent from en.Wikipedia for a long time, so I'm more than happy to be found wrong with this nomination, but after stumbling upon it browsing, I thought it seemed tremendously non-notable and basically just a puff piece. There don't seem to be any Reliable Sources for the article, and I don't think being a Member of the Youth Parliament qualifies someone on its own, especially with BLP concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has a very definite advertorial tint, and nothing in it represents a proper notability claim for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article. Serving in a youth parliament is not an WP:NPOL pass, existing as a journalist is not an automatic WP:JOURNALIST pass, and starting his own small air charter company is not an automatic pass over our notability standards for businesspeople. And the sourcing here is for the birds, comprising a mix of primary sources (his own LinkedIn, tweets, YouTube videos, etc.), coverage of other things or people in which he's the bylined author and not the subject (which are not sources that support the notability of a journalist), coverage of other things or people which merely namechecks his existence and is not about him (not notability-assisting sources either), and purely local coverage which is about him but is being given in the context of nothing that passes a notability criterion at all (e.g. suing a traffic cop over a parking ticket, starting a vigilante operation to catch somebody who stole his laptop.) Exactly none of this represents a valid reason why he would qualify a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious self-promotion by a non-notable person. --RevivesDarks (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS providing significant, long-term coverage: fails WP:BASIC; No RS demonstrating any top-level political positions held: fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving pings. Bizarre.} 18:11, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese newspapers: historical sources[edit]

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

Seems to be a case of original research. The article reads more like an essay on loosely-related topics than anything else. Janet-O (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been around for a long time, but I agree its purpose is unclear. Could it perhaps be moved to a page within Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan as research guidance? --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially the same content is already in Japanese_newspapers#Reproductions_of_Japanese_newspapers. I don't see the need for a separate version unless significantly different content is added. The version here has experienced a bit more copy editing, so perhaps some of that can be transferred over. Michitaro (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unsourced and all content exists in another article (where it rightly belongs) as shown above. No need of this separate parmanent stub — Ammarpad (talk) 18:54, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons Africa[edit]

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

I'd removed this list from Nicktoons (Africa) as per NOTGUIDE ... so the editor decides to create a subpage of it instead .... Still fails NOTGUIDE and still fails GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTTVGUIDE, basic clone of List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons and WP:MADEUP (the Kids' Choice Awards and Super Toy Run are specials, not series). Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genos Research[edit]

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

promotional, and no adequate sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no lead section, no real context and nothing proving its notablilty. PCN02 WPS 19:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Borderline A7 + G11. No real attempt has been made to make it remotely presentable; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 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. MER-C 08:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darry Ring[edit]

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

Non notable company (WP:NCORP). References don't establish notability given they are promotional/advertorials: (1) the Forbes article establishes the owners as entrepreneurs. The company is mentioned in passing. (2) this reads like a press release, (3) is about a singer's wedding (where the ring is mentioned) - probable promo, (4) might pass as editorial, however the use of provided picture material is suspicious, (5) promo, (6) re-reporting the Forbes article. Really just mention in passing, (7) seems self-edited, (8) advertorial. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator is under investigation for sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. Thanks. Timmyshin (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/G11 like the previous upload of this spam, or wait until the SPI's tags are in place and Speedy delete G5. Given that it's paid editing, WP:SALT is required to prevent the customer hiring more spammers. Cabayi (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per G5. This belongs to the 123Aristotle sock/meatfarm. GAB^gab 02:43, 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. "Has a lot of users" is not an established notability criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watopia[edit]

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

Watopia is a virtual island in a non-notable piece of software. Should someone choose to write an article about the Zwift software, then perhaps mention could be made there about Watopia, but it certainly does not merit its own article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no need to keep a reference-less orphan article about a "fictional environment in [an] existing place" that only exists itself within a somewhat obscure cycling trainer/game. If someone were to make an article about Zwift itself, then I support a redirect, but until then I see no need having this article at all. PCN02 WPS 19:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous comment: the fact that Zwift is a red link is reason enough. Too many levels of non-notability has given me a headache ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zwift has over 300,000 users so it's certainly notable, and Watopia is the main element of the system. Ideally a Zwift article should be created (it's about as obscure as the Tour de France) and this content merged in, but pending that, Watopia stays. Dan100 (Talk) 15:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIGNUMBER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, or ideally hold fire until someone recreates Zwift, as I'm sure they will before too long, so its content can be WP:SMERGEd there. There's already a Draft:Zwift page which only needs a bit of editing and more references, which are straightforward to find, e.g. Gizmodo, Bloomberg, Denver Post, Daily Telegraph and (more than a little ironically) Outside magazine. I'd do it myself but I don't have time just at the moment. Qwfp (talk) 14:04, 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) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small Brain Records[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a small independent record label, with a slight advertorial tint and no evidence of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, every record label does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because its own web presence verifies that it exists -- it needs to be the subject of enough media coverage to pass a sourceability standard, but there's no such coverage being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a ton of redlinks, no claims of notability, and no secondary references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:53, 21 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)

GMO conspiracy theories[edit]

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

This page is nothing but a one-sided POV fork of Genetically modified food controversies, which pejoratively labels criticism of biotechnology companies as "conspiracy theory." Obviously Monsanto et al do conspire—i.e. make secret plans—internally and with others, but these plans should be presented in a more neutral fashion. groupuscule (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Science and technology or possibly List of conspiracy theories#Medicine. Maybe make a few new sections within those and briefly describe the conspiracies, if any, listed in the article in question? PCN02 WPS 19:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GMOs are a polarising topic. Like other similarly controversial subjects there is criticism that is justified (environmental concerns and IP issues) and then false information that can only be described as a conspiracy theory (deliberate attempts to poison the world). An article that examines the more out there claims is valid. Personally I would like to see this in the larger context of GMO activism, which is a more nuanced and interesting (to me) topic, but there is no WP:Deadline and there is not much wrong with the article as is. AIRcorn (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This more or less is intended to behave the same as Climate change controversy and climate change conspiracy theory (not a WP:OSE argument, but an example of how fringe topics need to be handled sometimes) so a redirect isn't really appropriate. The controversies article handles the general controversy and how sources like the scientific literature address those, etc. The notable but pure quackery (WP:NFRINGE is at play here) is what goes into this article because it would be undue weight in the controversies article even though the content and idea of conspiracy theories in this topic is notable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination by an anti-GMO WP:ACTIVIST who probably should be topic banned. jps (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could be improved but there's nothing outstandingly wrong with as is. I have to second the notion that this nomination was not made in the best faith given the editing history of the nominater. Capeo (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GMO and food safety related conspiracy theories are notable enough to be covered. —Paleo Neonate – 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (WP:SNOW) per kingofaces and others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aircorn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SNOW. Bad faith nomination of a well-sourced article based on what seems like overt POV pushing. Delta13C (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article lumps in a set of loosely related ideas under the pejorative label “conspiracy theory,” thus associating justified concerns (e.g. “powerless farmers forced to pay ever increasing amounts to anonymous international companies who profit from the cost of the crop seed and from the cost of the herbicides used to spray them”) with spurious and short-lived internet memes about the Zika virus and Chipotle.

The second sentence of the lede reads as follows:

These conspiracy theories include claims that agribusinesses, especially Monsanto, have suppressed data showing that GMOs cause harm, deliberately cause food shortages to promote the use of GM food, or have co-opted government agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration or scientific societies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Industry influence on the FDA and the AAAS is a mater of record (Michael R. Taylor, [1], [2], [3], ), so to call this idea a “conspiracy theory” is wrong—since, according to the definition on Wikipedia, a “conspiracy theory” posits an “unwarranted” conspiracy (and is a “derogatory” term.)

The last section of the article, titled “Ethical Criticism”, showcases a long quotation smearing GMO critics as “paranoid and misinformed” or as privileged Whole Foods shoppers. Its underlying premise is that biotech foods are truly wonder foods that will save the world, and so anyone who opposes them is wittingly or unwittingly doing something unethical. This is not useful, encyclopedic information.

Perhaps some of the people advocating against deletion could state a little more clearly their vision for how this article could be written in a neutral way. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It would be inappropriate to respond to the above claims here. The place to discuss that is the article talk page. Even if the article isn't neutral, We don't delete articles because they are not neutral. --Guy Macon (talk)

Keep: the editor who filed this AfD has not provided a valid reason for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all of the above. These conspiracy theories really do exist, and the deletion argument is largely a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. Just a note that the same nominator has also created another article in what appears to be in opposition to this WP:SNOW keep, which is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monsanto_public_relations_activities. Those who have commented on POV issues with the conspiracy theory article being nominated may also find that deletion discussion of interest. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question/observation for keep voters above. Check out the most recent addition to this article, a description of two films "which countered the growing anti-GMO sentiment among the public". In my view this provides a great example of how the "conspiracy theory" label creeps into a smear against all opposition to genetic engineering. Notice that Genetic Literacy Project is given as a source. I don' see anything here discriminating between "quack" and "legitimate" criticism; I see all criticism being painted with a broad brush. To those "keep" voters who believe this article needs to exist in its own right in order to discriminate, specifically, the quackery, do you consider this most recent edit acceptable? I would really like to have a dialogue about this, as I indicated above. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 18:41, 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 redirect to DCM Shriram group. Redirects do not require notability, merely appropriateness. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fenesta[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; no apparent independent press coverage. The "Press Coverage" link is to a 404 page. The company is already mentioned in the article regarding its parent, the DCM Shriram group, and that appears to be all that is appropriate. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent, DCM Shriram group. I see no in-depth coverage supporting independent notability, just links to what are essentially press releases and promotional blurb. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient claim to notability even for a redirect. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does a redirect need notability? The company is mentioned at the suggested target, and though there's not a lot about it there, it is Wikipedia content and people should be able to find it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Hall[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability Rogermx (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a postdoc it's too soon for the subject to pass WP:PROF; I couldn't even find a faculty page or any peer reviewed publications that she has verifiably authored. The Antarctica expedition is a textbook WP:BLP1E that hasn't even happened yet. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's clearly too junior for WP:PROF but I think she passes WP:GNG for non-academic material, making academic notability irrelevant. I expanded the bare-url sources in the article and added another, which saves her from BIO1E: she's "one of the few female founders of tech start-ups in Perth" [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about RateMySpace is in her university's promotional magazine, I don't think it can be considered an independent source as far as WP:SIGCOV is concerned. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG and I've rewritten the article, too and added a little bit more. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG; no BLP1E concerns after expansion. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In light of article expansion, as nominator will change to keep. Thank you for upgrading this article. I love a happy ending. Rogermx (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG through she fails WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sufficient sources for WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panjabi Hit Squad[edit]

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

Non-notable musicians. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skindiver (trademark)[edit]

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

Violated WP:PRODUCT - Trademark is dead in US according to US patent office http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:ek2t7e.2.2. Cannot find any reliable source that discusses product and indicates owner of it or where it is trademarked. Rogermx (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Refs are largely to a body-modification wiki, and aren't about the Trademark, which is the nominal subject of this bizarre article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 20 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. The keep arguments are more convincing(ly supported by evidence). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gator's Dockside[edit]

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

no evidence of significance, let alone notability. Local references only--and they are pr or pr-based DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the article looks like a business listing and the references appear to be native advertising. Simply not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable; advertising and trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional references added since the article was PRODded support WP:SIGCOV. A regional chain to be sure, but one which has attracted notice in several independent media sources over the years. The article can certainly be improved and expanded, but it no longer is supported solely by pr pieces or only local coverage. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable restaurant chain, not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Reads like a directory listing and / or franchise ad; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of coverage in gnews search - most of it is routine, but there are also incidents like [5] [6] [7] [8] and others - they got continuing attention for it, nationwide. Also [9] [10] [11], and more. I think there's enough here to pass GNG. Barely, but barely counts. If the article "looks like a business listing" then that's a cleanup issue, and that's not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 21 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Millar[edit]

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

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

I reviewed the article Steve Millar and its edit history. Some observations:

The article itself includes nothing of notability. The subject attended high school, released three self-produced albums, appeared in groups of no significance beyond being local bands, and apparently is not involved in anything of note other than performing with a band that is at hire to play for events.

The edit history indicates that most of the article was written by unregistered editors (only IP addresses and redlink authors are noted) and that the appearance of established editors (myself included) was for general cleanup.

Meanwhile, the only citation links to a Mac site that has nothing I could find to confirm the subject's biography.

I could be wrong but this article strikes me as being the work of people who are close to the subject. What I am certain of, however, is that the use of language here is promotional (making more of things than is there) and that the lack of significant detail (information of interest to general readers) indicates little could be done to improve the article. Allreet (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Allreet: Please properly format this like an AfD discussion. See WP:AFD. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless reliable sources are added before the end of this process. bd2412 T 15:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. @Allreet: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 17:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This makes no claim that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC, cites no reliable source coverage to support anything, and has a very definite advertorial tint to the writing. Quite literally the closest thing I can see to any actual basis for an article here is the hatnote indicating not to confuse him with Steve Miller the joker smoker midnight toker, and that's not a strong basis — helping an independent musician disambiguate himself from a much more famous person with a similar name is not, in and of itself, a Wikipedia inclusion criterion that would exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG. For the record, I'm also adding his one album which has a separate article to this discussion, as it makes no claim of notability (or even any real substance besides being an album by him, the end) either. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent vanity article, deficient in sourcing. A google search turns up no evidence of significant coverage in independent sources to merit a wikipedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:02, 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 keep. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omeljan Pritsak[edit]

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

The subject doesn't have significant coverage in media and as well as reliable source. --Yuriy Urban (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs new references, but that alone is not really enough for deleting it. His obituary seems to support his notability, and there is a lot of coverage in various sources. Fresh sources are rarer, but notability is not temporary. This is an article in need of cleanup and referencing, so outright deletion would be too harsh. WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Ceosad (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few references for the article to better prove Pritsak's notability. Ceosad (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created with the wrong template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Yuriy Urban: Please see WP:AFDHOWTO for the proper procedures for future nominations. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: I do not understand English. Delete this page --Yuriy Urban (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frivolous nomination. " ... HURI's founder, Omeljan Pritsak, the first Mykhailo S. Hrushevs'kyi Professor of Ukrainian History and a scholar of broad scope and erudition, who served as the Institute's first director until his retirement in 1989". The founder of an institute at Harvard is certainly notable. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Named professorship at Harvard, founder and director of a notable research institute, founder and editor-in-chief of a notable journal, highly cited for a historian, multiple books widely held in libraries, a two-volume festschrift and a memorial monograph in his honour, multiple obituaries in national newspapers and peer reviewed journals (cited in the article)... this passes both WP:PROF and the WP:GNG with flying colours. Nominator has completely failed to do a proper WP:BEFORE. – Joe (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. In addition to all of the above, here is a lengthy news obituary from the Boston Globe thru HighBeam Research, describing him as an "internationally renowned scholar in Ukrainian studies". Clear pass of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. We're just not going to delete named professors at Harvard with so many published sources. Clear pass of both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Pritsak is a prominent figure for the new Ukrainian science. Coming to Ukraine at the end of soviet era he acquired some opponents among the old soviet bureaucracy. The traces of that criticism we see in Ukrainian wiki today. Some users are vandalising Pritsak`s legacy. So this nomination is probably from that sort of subjective negativity. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 23:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akshai Sarin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely. Nearly G11-able promo-spam. Rubbish promotional-sourcing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — don't let the size of the article fool you. Completely improperly referenced, it does seem like some spam (per nom). Fails WP:GNG.NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 22 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. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fawad Hassan Fawad[edit]

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

Seemed non notable person. No additional sourced. HINDWIKI • CHAT 16:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adeel Safi (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)The reason given for the deletion tag is that the subject is a non notable. Had HINDWIKI read the references tagged they would have known the prominence of the subject. Please next time make sure you do your research before doing something as big as nominating a page for deletion.[reply]

Keep he is a prominent bureaucrat in the country who has served as Personal Secretary to Prime Minister of Pakistan. there are numerous press clips online which can be used to curate a bio. This is detailed bio on the subject. --Saqib (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adeel Safi (talk)The subject is a civil servant who is often regarded as one of the most powerful man in the Pakistan Muslim League government. I am attaching several links. Please look into these and if you think that he is a 'notable', please remove the deletion tag from the page. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG84v2uTowg https://dailytimes.com.pk/81749/leave-of-secretary-to-pm-raises-many-a-questions/ https://tribune.com.pk/story/1399617/bureaucracy-creating-hurdles-says-industries-minister/

Thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeel Safi (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delte~~ This article have no reliable sources per Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy and YouTube is not a additional source because anyone can upload videos on it. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete struck since your nom is already considered your !vote (see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Miscellaneous_advice). Youtube is neither reliable nor unreliable, though more content on youtube is unreliable than reliable. There's a big difference between using as evidence clips of broadcast news from the official account of a news media source vs a self-published video uploaded by a random with an opinion. (see WP:Video_links#References) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The move from Draftspace appears to have been irregular, and the article and its sources are not great. On the other hand, the nomination is worse, and is bordering on WP:SK3 speedy close given that one of the sources before the nom was from The Nation, and as Principal Secretary to two PMs he has been a well covered, influential, and controversial figure in English sources (+ Urdu?). The article is currently far blander than coverage suggests is fair weight [12][13][14]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Saqib. Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... which is one of 10 delete !votes made Sportsfan 1234 between 01:55 and 01:59... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for bad nomination and many evidence that the subject is regularly mentioned in Pakistani press. I also see many sources like this related to him. He certainly passes WP:GNG as well known government official. Also the nominator is merely looking for additional sources (per his statement above) and this is wrong place to ask that. There's template for such request like ((refimprove)) and many others — Ammarpad (talk) 06:57, 20 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Croatian television[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_years_in_Israeli_television. There was a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the mass creation of mostly empty articles. If any of the articles in the list have content (most don't), they are a duplication of the relevant categories. See the previous discussion at AfD which is linked above for other criteria as to why this should be deleted. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beside being duplicate of existing category they've no known encyclopedic value as their pageviews shows. — Ammarpad (talk) 07:00, 20 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. Normally, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable closing an AfD with this little discussion, but in conjunction with the unanimous delete decision from the previous AfD, it seems reasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terracoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AFD was to delete because of notability issues. I have search and I do not see that the notability of this cryptocurrency has changed since the last discussion VViking_TalkEdits 14:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A quick Google search did not reveal many independent sources (it appeared that almost all of them were for websites selling cyptocurrency), and combined with the fact that the article does not have any sources, I would say it fails WP:NOTABILITY. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 04:30, 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 speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion advanced. (non-admin closure) – Joe (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Espoir FC de Mutimbuzi[edit]

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

This article has been abandoned and also has no references, and parts of this article might be made up. The article is also only 2 lines long. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Team plays (or has played; may have been relegated) at the top professional level in their country, and has won the national championship at least once. Article should be improved, not deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in the top national division, notable. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiDan61. Plays in the Burundi Premier League and passes WP:FOOTYN.All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 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 WP:SK#1 - not a valid rationale for deletion.. ansh 666 23:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K11UU-D[edit]

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

This article is abandoned and clearly has many issues, it also has nothing to offer to wikipedia as an article on its own, i think it should be deleted or merged. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Television stations that broadcast on-air (especially with the distinction of being the sole carrier for Bahai' broadcasting in American Samoa) should be considered generally notable. Sourcing needs to be improved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very poor nomination that does not give a valid deletion rationale.198.58.171.47 (talk) 20:12, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPDcast[edit]

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

This article has many issues. It has been abandoned since Feb 2015, and also: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject, since 2011. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence given or found that this organization meets WP:ORG. No evidence found of COI, however. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources don't exist to establish organizzation's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.58.171.47 (talk) 23:03, 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. I'm going to go ahead and close this Afd from this editor, also per WP:SK #1. The nominator fails to advance an actual argument for deletion and indicate any clear reason why this article subject is not notable -- which is what we are concerned about at Afd, not clean up issues. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jocjonjosch[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues which can be seen on it's page, some or most of these issues can make this article more vulnerable to being deleted. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Group meets WP:GNG based on coverage by BBC and showing at Musée d'art Valais. No valid deletion rationale given. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before assesing this, I did a search for sources and added three good ones. They meet WP:GNG based on coverage in reliable sources.198.58.171.47 (talk) 20:02, 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 per WP:SK#1. AfD is not the venue to suggest merges. (non-admin closure) – Joe (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Wireless Telegraph (Amateur Service) Rules, 1978[edit]

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

This article has been abandoned for over 6 years, and needs to be merged with another article ReeceTheHawk (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's up with this new criteria of "abandoned"? Only drafts are abandoned on Wikipedia. Everything else is just an article. This should probably be closed as it proposes no valid deletion rationale.198.58.171.47 (talk) 20:28, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Discounted the non-policy-based !votes from smells-like-WP:CANVASS-spirit IPs. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Rock (Chessington World of Adventures)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Unsourced conjecture, WP:CRYSTAL. Cabayi (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, not yet in existence, obvious violation ofWP:SPECULATION and WP:TOOSOON issue. No detailed report can be found in reliable sources. — Ammarpad (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep forever Because, fans don't want this article to be deleted. 2.29.76.201 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the ride is still under construction. 91.231.90.254 (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure where these IPs have come from but I added ((notavote)) to the top. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:14, 20 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 Alappuzha district#Education. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.G.R.M Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

This article only has one source which is a list and needs citations for verification. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alappuzha district#Education WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The school doesn't actually seem to be mentioned in the list that is cited as a source, unless I am missing something? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that - it's listed as AGRM HSS. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing our notability guidelines (and the requirement for verifiability, of anything beyond the school's name and location). I haven't even been able to find a source that explains what AGRM stands for, let alone base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Though all secondary schools should at least potentially be considered notable, that does not mean they necessarily need a separate article when there is this little material. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It is time to stop assuming that just because a school educates people ages 14-18 or so, it is notable. That is just not a logical idea. I know of enough K-12 or pre-K to 12 charter schools in Metro Detroit that have never been noted in any reliable source ever to not buy this notion that all secondary schools should be presumed notable. There are no sources that show notability. It is time to stop keeping articles based on a supposed consensus to keep articles, and start keeping them based on the sources that actual exist, or in cases like this do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Why, exactly? Is Wikipedia going to run out of space? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Alappuzha district#Education. Even if things aren't notable enough for their own articles, they can be covered elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:44, 21 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 redirect to Freshmen (comics). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Lalleaux[edit]

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

This article has no sources or references, and has been abandoned for a very long time. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freshmen (comics). No valid sources and the article has remained as an incomplete stub for over 8 years. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure how valuable a redirect would be. Anyone knowledgeable enough to search for this character's name would know how to find the Freshmen (comics) article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Argento: Redirects are cheap, and it is possible that someone might hear the name of this character out of context and wish to look him up. (My kids are constantly mentioning thematic elements of their favorite media out of context, as if I would understand such things automatically!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't oppose a redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:41, 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 speedy keep. SK#1. No valid rationale for deletion given, and WP:SAL is obviously met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of governors of Takhar[edit]

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

This article is broken and is unneeded. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as lacking any objective rationale for deletion in the nomination. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK #1: this list is not "broken." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid rationale for deletion given. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Rahim Soomro[edit]

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

Very promotional in tone. Claims that the subject has published a large number of papers, but a review of the publications on Google Scholar and ResearchGate shows that a very high proportion are in journals that appear on Beall's list and its successors - i.e. predatory open access, the academic equivalent of vanity press. Overall, despite the peacock terms, there's no real evidence this meets WP:PROF. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He had published several reputed papers; including but not limited to paper published in ISI indexing journal and conferences (Researcher ID E-7462-2016, http://www.researcherid.com/rid/E-7462-2016); Scopus Indexed Journals and Conferences (Scopus ID 0000-0002-7119-0644, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7119-0644) and his ORCID is 6507687835 (Please see https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=6507687835), which can be very easily verified with given references.

He has more than 390 citations (according to google), this means his publications are quality publication and has been appreciated & cited; along with his h-index = 10, shows that he is consistent in quality publication. (Ref: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0zP5EYoAAAAJ&hl=en) Arif80s (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC) — Arif80s (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You say "he" as if you are not the subject or his representative. That is... implausible. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am evaluating the papers and the journals and will put in my !vote when I am done. A cursory glance however shows a lot of predatory open access journals. I have been unable to find publications in tier 1 or 2 conferences/journals and an h-index of 10 is not that great in Computer Science.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether the papers are in legitimate journals or not isn't directly relevant, since we don't judge notability by what a person has written, but by what has been written about them. What is relevant is that a large portion of the citations to the subject's work are also in predatory/vanity journals, and these can't be considered coverage in reliable sources for the purposes of WP:N. Combined with the low citation counts and h-index, I think this makes the case for WP:PROF#C1 very weak indeed. I also can't find anything that would indicate a pass of any of the other PROF criteria, or any media coverage that would count towards the GNG. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable. AsadUK200

Answer If you are considering deletion of this article then please look at the following in Pakistani Computer Scientists category:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Razaque his Google citation are less https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EFC24OwAAAAJ&hl=en He is PhD in 2014-15 and according to HEC Pakistan can’t qualify to become Professor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Jaffar-ur-Rehman no list of papers, no citations on Google available can’t be verified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeshan-ul-Hassan_Usmani very prominent personality but look at his papers and citations https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YQo8S_cAAAAJ&hl=en Arif80s (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to nominate for deletion any other article you consider falls below the required standards of sourcing. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 20 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. Sandstein 13:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING .There were no deaths and all the accused were acquitted.The case is closed due to lack of evidence and it appears no further appeal has been made against the acquittal. Clearly there no lasting impact here.There is also a issue of WP:BLPCRIME about naming the Alleged preceptors in the article Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fairly recent AfD ended in No consensus. Nothing has made me change my previous stance of keeping the article. Per WP:GNG, good sources/references. Third party sources. Per WP:INDEPTH. BabbaQ (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The first AFD was in September 2016 -- by no means is that considered "recent". "Per GNG" is a WP:ATA as is "per indepth".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fairly recent" is actually a good description. It's more than a year so can be relisted but as the coverage is ungoing the question that rises is "why again?" gidonb (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD was in September 2016 and closed as No consensus and it clearly fails WP:LASTING and all coverage is routine and there is no ongoing or continued coverage and no news reports beyond WP:PRIMARYNEWS on the day .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

Now there are news reports that the incident took place ,trial started and they were acquitted and all the book merely mention the incident without even a full sentence solely dedicated to this incident only mention it along with other incidents none of them are indepth and none of them discuss the incident specifically in detail even the brief mention is a general and there is not even one article gives significant coverage about the incident clearly fail WP:INDEPTH and nothing after 2012 when the verdict came out failing WP:LASTING.Further all the accused have been acquitted and no further investigation is going on and this case is closed permanantly.
1 Brief News about the incident 2004
2 Brief News about the incident 2004 .

A brief news story about the trial there is no continued coverage between 2004 and 2010

3 Brief news that the case starts 2010

A brief news story about the acquittal no coverage between 2010 and 2012.

4 Brief news that are acquitted 2012

None of the references are indepth all are clearly routine news .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that the accused were acquitted does make throwing a bomb at a house of prayer a non-terror act (either by someone else who wasn't accused or reasonable doubt) - and in any event terror/non-terror status (or the number of victims) of the alleged incident is not a factor per WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG - what matters is whether there are lasting and persistent sourcing. In this case, we have some - [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. The acquittal may be relevant in terms of removing of the BLP names currently in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment thanks for your work .I leave it to the closer but going through some of the links most of them are mere mentions and clearly lack WP:INDEPTH and fails WP:LASTING nothing after 2012 when the verdict was given .
5 merely mentions unknown assailants threw bombs in 2011
merely mentions unknown assailants threw crude bombs in 2006
merely mentions about Incidents of bomb blasts in Parbhani,Jalna and Aurangabad in Maharashtra in 2009
By Asghar ali Engineer merely mentions unknown motor cycle riders throw bombs in 2006
Mentions about the blast By Asghar ali Engineer mere mention in 2005
Not sure whether the others are Reliable sources but this mere mention published in 2008 and mentions in 2008 .
(Note mentioned the year when the Book or article was published) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eight years of ongoing national coverage in the world's largest democracy, with a notable free press. Covered in a number of books. Article does need improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no continued or ongoing coverage for 8 years in 2004 the incident takes place it is reported then in 2010 the case starts and in 2012 they are acquitted .There is no continued coverage beyond routine news that is for 1 day in 2004 ,2010 and 2012 just 3 to 4 days the newspaper have really covered it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incidence was mentioned in a Paksitani newspaper literally this year (2017). The mention may be passing, but keep in mind that it has been over a decade. I feel that still satisfies WP:LASTING, especially since it "act[s] as a precedent or catalyst for something else." This was the first in a series of Hindu nationalist attacks in the years following such as the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombing. The concerns about WP:BLP seem reasonable though. Kamalthebest (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks .There has no significant coverage at anytime and could not find one article solely dedicated to this incident apart form the news reports anytime since 2004 and Thanks for pointing it out this the first piece I could find after 2012 articles through it briefly mentions it along with Jalna, Parbhani (2003) and Purna (in 2004) . Hence feel it fails WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure of WP:LASTING. There is clearly no reason why this article should be kept, it has still not gained any notability despite it occurred so long ago. Orientls (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT due to lack of proper coverage by media.

Only one result in Google news search

Non-notable event as there was no casualty. Accused were acquitted. It's not even proved what was the motive behind the blast. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Also fails WP:EVENT because of the lack of coverage and even during the heydays the coverage was short. Lorstaking (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editors need to actually read the sources. Passing mentions are not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact. I think there is a confusion between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece that briefly mentions it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. News and book searches show that this attack was and still is widely covered in India. gidonb (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:LASTING .Editors need to actually read the sources. Notability is being presumed on basis of non existent significant coverage sources reminds one of Don Quixote .86.168.36.155 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG and it was only reported initially and has ended up with nothing interest that it warrants a separate article like Marvellous Spiderman notes, i.e. fails WP:LASTING. Capitals00 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really, the proper solution is to create a list to which all these likely religiously-motivated attacks on mosques which are borderline notable can be merged to, but such a list does not exist and Violence against Muslims in India only lists the most serious incidents. This incident was covered in-depht at the time, [23][24] received coverage during the history of the trial, [25][26][27] and is still cited in adademic works as an example of Hindu religious violence against Indian Muslims. [28][29][30]. The level of coverage in academic sources as part of a nexus of other similar attacks militates against outright deletion.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say cannot see any level of coverage in academic journals almost all of them given before the verdict including the statement came out now no investigation is going on in this case

1:Mentions a list of terrorist incidents including Jalna copied from FakeTerrorism Watch Wordpress and the list given here in the book is taken directly from FakeTerrorism Watch Wordpress here mentioned in the book itself the wordpress site states Most of the articles are taken from the major news channels with source link provided on the bottom.
2:2011 states Unkwown assilants throw crude bombs

3:2010 only states An Indian media report noted that "the involvement of Hindu groups in terror activities was suspected" mentions various incidents including Jalna Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you looked at academic journals, but a Google Scholar search of "Jalna mosque 2004 bomb" gives what looks like 10 papers discussing the attack as an example of Hindu violence against Muslims, which only strengthens why this should be kept or merged somewhere as an alternative to deletion. As for your other points:

1. It's a source that the author, Dr. Puniyani who is a professor and prominent activist on the issue, [31][32] considered and decided to include. The fact that from the blog there is taken from major news channel with source links, is a sign that it's a source which has editorial standards, and that would've been part of the consideration in the author deciding to include such a list.

2. The source does state that the crude bombs happened and the number of injuries, but is discussed in the context of communal violence in India. The author, Prof. Kumar, is an Indian criminal law professor and used this attack as a prominent example in a section about "official reports of communal violence" in a book about anti-Muslim communal violence in India.

3.The point of the MEMRI source, like the other two books I cited, was to show that continued to be cited as a prominent example of Hindu attacks on Muslims years after the incident. The presence of such academic sources mentioning this context behind the attack is sufficient to keep this for now and/or seriously consider an alternative to deletion such as merging this to a relevant list/article on similar attacks instead of outright deletion, which would follow how academic RS treat it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable incident that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Sources provided above were only initial reports that basically plagiarized each other, and such random incidents occur a lot. Per WP:GNG we need much more than that. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:29, 21 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) 18:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Hand Foundation[edit]

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

No conceivable notability. I think one of the reasons for the decline of the Speedy A7 by Ritchie333 might not have been appropriate--that it has been unchallenged for 7 years merely indicates our incompetent review of articles at the time. But Ritchie's request to check for sources first was certainly reasonable. There's nothing but notices, which is just what would be expected fro the content of the article. But from their web site and similar information they seem an extraordinarily worthy cause, and if anyone can find information to write an article, i wouldn't object in the slightest. . DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 31 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} 02:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG, indepth. will look for redirects and ATD in teh murnin. L3X1 (distænt write) 06:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cerner. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the proposed redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- $7 million contributions a year, of which they bank $2 million. How much comes from Cerner is not documented, so I deleted it. Whether this is good work or good publicity, I don't know. Don't redirect to Cerner until you know for sure that's where the money comes from. Rhadow (talk)
Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for a nn org. Do not redirect to Cerner as the subject is not mentioned in the suggested target. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability that meet the criteria. Topic fail GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 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. Good consensus that this does not meet WP:PROF -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin St. P. Walsh[edit]

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

Associate professor. Does not yet meet the notability guideline for academics or the general notability guideline. – Joe (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associate professor status has nothing to do with notability. Walsh has received a Rome Prize ^[1] and a Fulbright, and been a named visiting professor at a major university (Criteria 2 at WP:ACADEMIC). He has received large competitive grants from the National Geographic Society and the Loeb Classical Library Foundation at Harvard University. ^[2] The importance of his book can be seen in this review, by a leading figure in the field of classical archaeology.^[3] His current work has attracted significant media attention. ^[4] ^[5] Hossiejojo (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Hossiejojo[reply]

References

@Hossiejojo: Not directly, but I mentioned it because in previous AfDs the consensus has been that associate professors rarely have had time to make the significant impact that WP:PROF requires, and so we generally end up deleting them unless there's something exceptional. The awards you mention, while impressive, are still relatively junior. I don't think they meet #C2's "major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize" or "confer a high level of academic prestige". Research grants are not something we consider because they hardly ever produce significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The review and media coverage help, but reviews of academic monographs are pretty much routine, and I don't think there's quite enough in the press articles to pass the GNG. And ultimately, his very low citation counts are a strong indication that simply not enough has been said about his scholarship to support a balanced biography at this time. – Joe (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: First, the WP:ACADEMIC page says that only one of the criteria need to be fulfilled. I gave you a number of pieces of data. But the idea that the Rome Prize is not "major" -- its own page on Wikipedia lists every person who has received it, including Walsh. How many other awards get that kind of treatment? The American Academy in Rome is the most prestigious of the CAORC centers, which are the most important US overseas research institutes. Yes, getting your book reviewed is de rigueur, but there are multiple highly-positive reviews of Walsh's book in major venues including in the American Journal of Archaeology, the most-important journal in the field (see his Humanities Commons site). It seems like you're just being arbitrary here. Hossiejojo (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rome Prize is essentially a one year, early career fellowship/residency at the AAR and is given to thirty people a year. It's no Nobel. I don't agree that the things you have put forward amount to a pass of WP:PROF, but lets see what other editors think. – Joe (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lists are a dime a dozen on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thus Wikipedia having an allegedly complete list of everyone who has recieved the Rome Prize is not a sign that winning it is a sign of notability. The list articles on the Rome Prize are severly lacking in citations. Also, in cases like Miss California and many other awards we have shown that having such a long list does not gaurantee that being on the list makes someone notable. Well under half, and probably only a quarter of recent, winners of the Rome Prize have articles. Other articles on Rome Prize winners may be ripe for deletion, since they often lack good sources. Awards of this level are not a sign in and of themselves that the person is a major and impactful scholar. The rules mean that starting scholars rarely are notable, and old established ones often are. That is the reality of how academics works, be it good or bad. Wikipedia is meant to reflect the reality of reliable source coverage, and starting scholars generally lack such coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that for scholars such as archeologists the Rome Prize seems to be largely limited to those who study the general area of Italy makes it even less of a distinguished award than it is for emerging figures in the arts, where the competition at least in theory is an open competition of all artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the Rome Prize has been given to 30 recipients consistently since its founding, we do not have a complete listing of receipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I note at he is not even mentioned on page Morgantina, a site that has been excavated since the 1800s. I don't doubt that he has been there - scores of archaeologists have been - but he does not seem to play an important role. I am not seeing widely cited papers; no books. It sort of comes down to a a few articles that cover his roles as co-directing the first archaeological investigation of a human habitation site in space, the International Space Station Archaeological Project. a non-notable notion that NASA needed to hire archaeologists to do a virtual dig in space. The article do not offer WP:SIGCOV of Walsh. I'm just not seeing notability here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:25, 22 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mithaq Kazimi[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Hi Edwardx (talk), CAPTAIN RAJU

So first off he's not a businessman to be a "Run-of-the-mill businessman," he's a film producer with some 10+ years of work behind him. I'm one of the major contributors of Afghan/Iranian/Indian personalities and organizations and most of the articles I create or contribute to are 'flagged' because Western editors do not find them "notable" enough. Please see my talk page for many other articles flagged for similar reasons. This one, I won't even argue for because there's enough evidence of notability. ~User: Unknown Master

As we speak, he's the Editor-in-Chief of a highly regarded startup of India: http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/josh-talks-raises-funding-freshworks-founder-and-others-71756 / https://www.joshtalks.com/about

//

- Also, a similar flag has been raised on the poor guy who heads Afghanistan's film organization, one of the country's well-known directors and someone who has been covered extensively by media. If interested let's get that article populated as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latif_Ahmadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Master (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

@dwardx, there are a number of references and notability to the person. This issue is very common with non-American/European personalities wherein the "credible" sources are not English-based sources, usually.

He's the editor-in-chief of a reputed Indian company (https://www.joshtalks.com/about/) / https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/money/top-executives-from-hcl-hero-lenskart-freshworks-amongst-marquee-investors-to-invest-in-josh-talks/articleshow/61648369.cms

Here are some links I found:

- https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/19829 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgXZ0ukzTQ - http://www.wionews.com/team-wion/mithaq-kazimi - https://www.crunchbase.com/person/mithaq-kazimi - https://www.amazon.com/16-Days-Afghanistan-Mohammad-Hajher/dp/B001SVBTN2 - http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1807786 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.235.151 (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete altthough article is overstuffed with non-reliable sources, insignificant mentions, and nominations for non-notable prizes, I am not finding WP:SIGCOV of Kazimi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:34, 22 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Dorm Crew[edit]

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

We don't cover such topics unless significantly covered. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mention of this might be worth including in the article on student life at Harvard, but it is not sourced enough to merit a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this alone makes it notable enough "is the largest and oldest student-run fee-for-service organization in the world". Also article could be expanded to provide greater perspectives (as noted in some of the referenced books and articles) on the impact of the crew, who are students, washing toilets of their fellow classmates Rsarlls (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton was a porter at Trinity College, a paying job for poor students who mucked out privileged boys digs. you are claiming ot be the oldest entry in an ill-defined and unverifiable category.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 22 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Antony[edit]

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

Non notable associate editor - this is a more like a cv Gbawden (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE wouldn't call him notable & sources aren't strong enough to keep. RyanRO34 (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 3:50, 14 November 2017 (GMT)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a LinkedIn page ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:45, 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. Non-notable, editor spam blocked, sock puppetry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Atlantic[edit]

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

Largely sourced to FaceBook and other non-RS sources, little evidence of notability, promotional tone, COI editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The sourcing of tours should be better but they are signed to an international label & links to popular music sites, Alternative press, Hysteria, Amplify & Rock Sound makes them notable WP:BAND Bdolfc (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 07:37, 14 November 2017 (AEDT)[reply]

Keep Agree a lot of Facebook sources, but, as stated above me, signed to an international label^[1] & being on ALT press^[2] shows they're quite notable. RyanRO34 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 3:58, 14th November 2017 (GMT)[reply]

· Keep They certainly fit the 'notable' for WP:BAND & WP:GNG category featured on Alt Press & on Rock Sound (Including in their magazine^[3]) I'll aim to fix up the Facebook sources. BeccaMcdougall (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 9:21, 14 November 2017 (GMT) Update, I added more Rock Sound & Alternative Press sources where I could, as they're a reliable source. Have changed most of the Facebook Sources. BeccaMcdougall (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 10:16, 14 November 2017 (GMT)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete despite the enthusiastic keeps from the new users. Does not me the GNG. The fans should confine themselves to the facebook page, me thinks. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:49, 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. The sources offered here do not meet WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Print&Share[edit]

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

Article advertising a non-notable products. All URLs given as sources are either primary or clearly have a vested interest. (As a side note, the article for the parent company of this product is also nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winking (company).) Codename Lisa (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep this page. I don't see why a popular product being used in the majority of the world would needs to be deleted. The reason as you state that all urls given as sources are primary or have a vested interest is not true. BLI Byers lab is an independent test laboratory. Africa Print is a leading independent magazine. mynewsdesk is not affiliated. Data Manager Online is not affiliated and is an independent ict news magazine. solutions-magazine is an independent website, not affiliated. Of course the websites that write about this product are in the ICT business. About the side note, if you have checked all the articles nominated for deletion by user Rentier who marked the page for deletion, you will see that he seems to mark only software related products (tenfold, opusmodus, sifter, wordpress mp, ...). I start to having a feeling that he does this on purpose...) JuFo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and had another look at the sources that you claim are independent and prove notability, buyer's lab is not coverage just a statement that the product has been tested by their lab as have many thousands of products, had it won an award from BLI this would have helped...but it didn't. The africaprint article is a press release and not suitable as a source to prove GNG. Mynewsdesk is also a press release, as is data manager online. None of these count towards proving notability. Solutions magazine is a deadlink but judging from the title it looks exactly like a reprint of this page with the same title on the Ricoh website [33]. Domdeparis (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as per nom all sources are primary or affiliated. Domdeparis (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree above. No source makes it seem notable. RyanRO34 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 3:52, 14 November 2017 (GMT) — RyanRO34 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of StandAtlanticFans (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete side notes insinuating the nomination is somehow worse because the nominator focuses on a particular type of article is discouraged per WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. I agree that this article fails WP:GNG, and can't see any good reason to keep it. Dysklyver 13:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Actually, there is a purpose to the sidenote other than "common outcomes": The article was mistakenly tagged with an AfD tag, I assume because of edit conflict or a revert-backed dispute. I just wanted to prove that I already know about the other AfD, so as to avoid a premature closure, plus a trout, plus being branded as a complete idiot. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

( OMG ). I was referring to JuFo's side note ! About the side note, if you have checked all the articles nominated for deletion by user Rentier who marked the page for deletion, you will see that he seems to mark only software related products (tenfold, opusmodus, sifter, wordpress mp, ...). I start to having a feeling that he does this on purpose...), - arguing against the motives of the nominator is discouraged per commonoutcomes. Nothing wrong with your actual sidenote, sorry I didn't make that clear enough. Dysklyver 13:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect, should the article about the parent company stay) - per my original rationale for redirecting: lack of independent notability. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:CORPDEPTH are met. With regards to JuFo's remark, I have been in fact purposefully reviewing software-related articles, a large portion of which turns out to be unsuitable for inclusion. Rentier (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your remark Rentier, but there are pages which have far less information, resources, etc... and these pages come away with it by adding a "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.". Maybe by adding a stub you can encourage others to add more information instead of deleting information. And about moving this to the parent company. I'm not sure who owns the rights about this product. It's creator, or its distributor, or both. That's a tricky one if you want to move it. This is why I would suggest to keep it. This product is as widely uses as Foxit Reader and that page contains less information and is also a separate page.JuFo (talk)

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 Bruce Springsteen discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wachovia Spectrum, Philadelphia, PA 10/20/09[edit]

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

Non-notable. No charting or reviews. Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree above. Doesn't need a separate page, just add the album on Bruce' page. BeccaMcdougall (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 9:54, 14 November 2017 (GMT)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bruce Springsteen discography. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dương Dynasty (An Nam)[edit]

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

The original contributor to the article has been banned for creating hoaxes and adding untrue information to articles. This article is plausibly based, with Dương Tam Kha being a single king during a short period of the purported 'dynasty'.

Almost all of the sources are either unlinked or in foreign language, which is a big red flag given the contributing editor's history. There are a couple of sources that are not reliable sources, but do mention it as a dynasty:[34] [35], but they are not what could be considered 'reliable' for historical verification.

Seems like a big red flag that the editor has to resort to sources such as tea recipies and other sources that don't mention the subject at all.

Much of the content of the article is unverifiable with the sources given such as: "Although attacked by the Tang Dynasty more than once, Dương Dynasty always pushed back in revolt against the Tang Dynasty, and the heroes come from around the An Nam for retain they homeland during massive number of wars." which has three refs that I can't check (and again given the contributing user's history, is a massive red flag)

It also appears that the blocked user has been editing the article under two different IPs recently (Including restoring the article from a redirect with different content, which possibly makes this article G5able, but this was contested). If this article is restored as a redirect, I request that it is protected.

I suggest that we TNT this submission with no prejudice for recreating an article if someone decides to recreate it with real sources (if this period is really considered a 'dynasty' by reliable sources, which I am still not convinced of--See the talk page where others have raised concerns). Pinging talk page contributors: DHN and In ictu oculi. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - the article was created by ADHZ07111989, who was banned for repeatedly writing hoax, "alternative history" articles glorifying the Yang/Dương surname. I turned it into a redirect years ago as there's nothing useful or verifiable, but it was recently restored by an IP who's almost certainly a sock of ADHZ07111989 [36]. Time to take out the garbage. -Zanhe (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Semi blank article and fill with actual sources~~ on the semi-legendary kingdom: such as Thanh Hóa, thế và lực mới trong thế kỷ XXI -Viết Luân Chu, ‎Công ty cổ phần thông tin kinh tế đối ngoại - 2003 Page 26 "Kien So and Phu Lac (according to Dao Duy Anh. Kien So and Phu Lac- merged together to make Sung Binh at the end of Duong Dynasty), and Thuong Lac. Tung Nguyen. Quan Minh. 3. In the period of Tuy and Duong Dynasties King Tuy ." There is a problem here as Vietnamese sources over egg the historicity of "dynasties" before the 1000 years of Chinese dominance, while Chinese sources naturally deny any Vietnamese state before China's dominance. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: this purported dynasty is not one of the legendary kingdoms before Chinese domination. It's supposed to have existed between 603 to 906, during the Tang dynasty rule of Annam, and that is pure nonsense. -Zanhe (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some funny things in Vietnamese history books (as in Chinese ones) but looking at the sources Dương does seem to simply be a Vietnamese typo for Tang. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Mentioned in plenty of scholarly sources. Regardless of who created the article, the encyclopedic legitimacy of the topic is clear.~~ 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Tang dynasty, which ruled Annam/Northern Vietnam, is called Đường in Vietnamese, and that's the one that tends to come up in Google searches. -Zanhe (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 13:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT or stick ((Cleanup rewrite)) and strip back to verifiable facts. Dysklyver 13:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue here is not "verifiable facts", but verifiable scholarly relevance, ~~which is amply documented~~. Atlantis is highly notable, regardless of whether it ever existed. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that this article is not based on scholarly sources, nor is the content verifiable via scholarly evidence, so either way we need to TNT the content. Given the editor's history of hoaxing, removing the edit history from this article is probably a good idea (I don't often invoke WP:TNT, but in this case I find it appropriate). If someone wants to create a new article using scholarly sources and verifiable information, that will be totally OK. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument for keeping this article based on the fact that Atlantis has its own article is a textbook example of WP:OSE. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@84.73.134.206: The Duong dynasty in the Google books results is actually the Tang dynasty and has nothing to do with this article. -Zanhe (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if this article isn't a hoax created by a banned user, this article is way too short to actually be a notable subject to write about. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or TNT this "article" with no prejudice for recreating an article with proper and confirmed WP:RS citations. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I deleted a bunch of comments, some more rational than others, from a now-blocked disruptor; I do not wish for those comments to poison the well of discussion from which we all drink in brother- and sisterhood. If you are interested, you can check the history, but none of them involve the kinds of things what will make an administrator or participant change their minds. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is good reason to believe this is largely a hoax and, unless I'm misreading, no reliable sources that really say otherwise. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:42, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RedPoint Global[edit]

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

non notable--no actual prizes, jus tmentions along with many other companies. No references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with DGG: Where's the beef? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. Includes promo language such as "...has been recognized by Forrester as a leader in cross-channel campaign management!" etc. Borders on G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 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) 19:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Conspiracy with Satan - A Tribute to Bathory[edit]

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

Unsourced tribute album that fails the notability guideline for albums. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wouldn't class as notable & not sourced BeccaMcdougall (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 9:38, 14 November 2017 (GMT)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:48, 21 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. Although a more in-depth review of sources would be warranted in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian B. Allen[edit]

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

No accomplishments or reasons for notability are stated in this article. Fails WP:BIO. No significant achievements or works. NikolaiHo^☎️ 05:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This subject was selected from the "Missing Articles" section of the Woman in Red Contest. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Missing articles/North America. I assumed her notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG. I added some other references to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is a Masters thesis here - A CANADIAN TRAVELLER’S TALE: LILLIAN B. ALLEN AND DOCUMENTING TRAVEL, 1927-1979 that may yield further information on Allen. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would that imply notability though?

as an example, the thesis states that Allen had 15 photographic exhibitions, further research may yield where, also the thesis' bibliography could yield more, i do not have the time to look into it, another editor might. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also, we don't use librarything or goodreads for notability, but those sites may list reviews/awards that with the backup of reliable sources from elsewhere contribute to a subject's notability, this thesis may do the same. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what the problem with her GNG is? She's not as famous as Picasso, but so what? Edgespath24 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed three sources that were two lines or under: two event announcements and a photograph with a caption offering up the fact that she was travelling on a steamship to Honolulu. if this were a significant, notable artist, it would be easy to find good sources, and her work woudl be in at least a few collections. What we have here is a run-of-the-mill painter who was also an untenured (read: part-time) lecturer at an art school. Oh and she did publish one book and had a couple of shows. The notability, in the career and in the sources it produced, is not there.198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Plenty of independent reliable sources to write an article that explains who she is and show that her work as a painter is noted by others. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG. Additional references were added in the meantime by Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources given testify to the significant role she played in the Winnipeg art community.--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources to support her notability are good enough to meet guidelines. PK T(alk) 20:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely no notability deficit here. With so much recentism, we should take pride in such articles! Referring also to WP:SNOWBALL or perhaps withdraw? gidonb (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been considerably improved since nomination here and meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many editors above mention that the references are good. Personally I see many minor mentions like this one, which says:

"Miss Lilian Allen, lecturer in Applied arts, University of Manitoba, will be the chief speaker at the meeting of the Winnipeg Horticultural Society, (date, time, location)... there will be a table centre competition, entries to be subimtted by members and their friends. Decorations used need not be flowers, but such material as coloured paper, evergreens and so forth. Applications for the competion may be sent to... (name address)."

and this one:

Rent that extra room LIlian Allen of the University of Manitoba commences a new series of talks entitled "Furnishing the Home Front". (location, time) "rent that extra Room" is the title of the first talk.

and finally this one, which is a picture of her reading amgazine while waiting to board steamship.

Those are good sources? What happened to "in depth" coverage? I really can't see how they are anything beyond minor mentions. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't looked at the previous versions, but the current version meets the GNG without any issues. Miyagawa (talk) 19:01, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Clay Heroes[edit]

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

When I first came across this page it looked almost like a speedy delete candidate, but I thought cleaning it up first would be best. I've trimmed it down (removing the worst of the unsourced claims) and there are still a very large number of very grand statements that I simply cannot find reference for. The sources provided in the article, while talking about the film, are largely promotional (pre-release) and quote from the head of the AAT (who was also an executive producer). If someone can provide references for the multitude of ((cn)) tags I will happily withdraw this nomination, but otherwise I feel that it's an article about a smallish film where the page creator was trying to stretch the truth to make it seem more important. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched for the spanish titles, the one given here and at IMDB etc and nothing much is found. Galobtter (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 12 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} 05:00, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble Smart LLC[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and likely WP:PROMO. Over half the references are primary, secondary references read like from a press kit or fail reliability. I did a google search and found some occasional coverage, but failing WP:CORPDEPTH _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User s.s.jin: Edits have been made to diversify secondary sources and address concerns of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.s.jin (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S.s.jin: Thanks for this, however all the media coverage seems based on the same images/video footage which indicates somehow PR-related reporting. Also, could you let the community know how you are related to Pebble Smart? I noticed the family names of the owner and your username are identical. If you have a conflict of interest this must be disclosed. Many thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: Ah, understandable. I wrote this as a late-night practice, as I am a relatively new editor. Owners of the company are extended family. Upon reading through the simple conflict of interest guide, I see now I have violated several guidelines and should have consulted other members of the community before publishing. As such, I add my recommendation that the article should be deleted._pseudonym s.s.jin

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not inherently notable, clearly written with a Coi, and most of the refs are not reputable: even the media reports appear to be the result of a slow-news day ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:49, 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 redirect to BD+03 2562. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BD+03 2562 b[edit]

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

This has not received enough coverage to be given an article on its own. Elektricity (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mainstream coverage, one dedicated (to this and one other candidate planet) journal paper and two papers mentioning the parent star. Falls far short of WP:NASTRO. The discovery paper makes the point that this exoplanet is interesting for being found around a low-metallicity giant star but it is hardly unique in that respect and just adds to an intriguing body of evidence. Lithopsian (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BD+03 2562. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 21 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. Bushranger is correct: named geographic features such as islands pass WP:GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC) redirect to Pearl and Hermes Atoll. Although we usually keep named features per GEOLAND, we can also redirect them when there's a dearth of information about them. It is clear that this Bird Island is not the same notable Bird Island specifically called out in Executive Order 1019 (see File:Hawaiian_Islands_Reservation_EO_1019_illustration.jpg, they're way too far apart), which is where my impression of notability had come from. Although this book source was brought up at the AfD, it is only a single source and unclear how in-depth it is because the actual page is not available for preview. Happily, there's a copy at a library near me, so I've put it on order and will be able to check the information in it within a few weeks. In the meantime, unless or until more verifiable information about this Bird Island can be found, a redirect is suitable and the island can be covered at the atoll's article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Island, Hawaii[edit]

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

Not notable enough to be given an article. Elektricity (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Named geographic features such as islands pass WP:GEOLAND. Especially when they have book coverage. There is no "not notable enough" in this area. (Also I note the nominator began nominating multiple pages for AfD very quickly following the creation of their account, which is curious behavior.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger _{One ping only} I was under the impression that as Pearl and Hermes Atoll exists as an article, then this island is not notable enough. However after reading the essay you linked, I stand corrected. My apologies for the AFD. I am not sure what the correct procedure is to get the AFD removed, so if you can guide me through that as well; I will appreciate it. I actually made this account to prune an article about a jihadist. He had been given a number of titles etc and the article was being touted on social media as a validation for suicide attacks. Perhaps you can help out there as well? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema (2nd nomination) Elektricity (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's outside my usual area of expertise, but I'll point you to WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As for this AfD, you've declared your intent to withdraw and there aren't any outsdanding Delete !votes, so another admin (as I have !voted) will be along to close it soon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Bushranger. --do ncr am 15:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following Gene93k's note below, there is "Bird Island (Hawaiian Islands)" which exists as a redirect. But it redirects to Nihoa a different article. Is the subject of the current article the same or different? Maybe "Bird Island" is a nickname of more than one island, or this article simple needs to be converted to another redirect to Nihoa. --do ncr am 17:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to GNIS, there are two "Bird Islands" in Hawaii. One is a synonym for Nihoa while the other one lies hundreds of miles further west in Pearl and Hermes Atoll. The Mapcarta reference in the article specifies the one in Pearl and Hermes Atoll. The naming conflict may be resolved with a hat note or a move to Bird Island (Pearl and Hermes Atoll). • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles each have coordinates which do point to different islands, indeed. And it seems useful to have two articles to differentiate between them; it would be unhelpful for Wikipedia to explain about one of them without the other, causing confusion. --do ncr am 20:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That muddled my looking for something on it as well, but yes, there are two Bird Islands; Nihoa, and this one in the Pearl-and-Hermes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current co-ordinates point to an area of open water. The only source in the article conflates the location of this island with South East Island. The article currently fails WP:V. Can we get an accurate location of this island on a map?--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Maps satellite view only goes in close enough to see the whole atoll on which the islands are dots. Map mode allows a greater resolution showing the individual islands. While the Mapcarta entry shows South East Island, Bird Island is just to the west according to Google Maps. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Maps as just one example shows our co-ords appearing in open water roughly halfway between Southeast Island and Sand Island (not labelled but visible as a small island of sand). There is clearly no island there. Our single ref, Mapcarta says Bird Island is "nearby to Southeast Island, east of Sand Island" but the position it gives on the map is identical to that of Southeast Island. Either "Bird Island" is a synonym of "Sand Island" or Southeast Island and the Mapcarta text is wrong, or it doesn't exist. Either way the article fails WP:V--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USGS names three distinct islands (Bird Island 1890762, Southeast Island 1890778 and Sand Island 1890774. The USGS coordinates for Bird Island 27°47′33″N 175°50′33″W / 27.7925000°N 175.8425000°W / 27.7925000; -175.8425000 are approximately the same the Google Maps coordinates. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This NOAA site states there are seven islands in total on the atoll. The accompanying map names them and fails to mention Sand Island, placing Bird Island where USGS put Sand Island. I think the only sensible thing is to mention Bird Island in the atoll article, not have a standalone page. WP:GEOLAND concurs for unpopulated features that don't meet the GNG.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~Since this is not a settlement, the correct title should be Bird Island (Hawaiian Islands), which already exists as a redirect. A page move is in order if this article survives AfD.~~ • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: The nominator has withdrawn the nomination above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pearl and Hermes Atoll. The nominator may have withdrawn this but I don't see sufficient sources to base an article on. A redirect is more appropriate per WP:GEOLAND "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration I am leaning to delete. A search for "Bird Island Hawaii" gives this as the number one result and Bird Island (Hawaiian Islands) as the fifth result, although the latter is clearly the more notable. Deleting this would still enable people to find any mention of a bird island in Pearl and Hermes Atoll while at the same time giving search priority to the more notable island.--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "more notable", and we absolutely shouldn't be basing keep-or-delete decisions on the basis of search engine optimization. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a primary topic for "Bird Island, Hawaii" and it's not this island. Decisions on redirects should be based only on search optimization.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps this should be moved to Bird Island (Pearl and Hermes) with Bird Island, Hawaii pointing to the other island? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I closed the nomination as keep, since the nominator had withdrew before any delete votes. However, Pontificalibus reverted me although his vote came after the withdrawal by the nominator! For attention (@The Bushranger:) --Mhhossein ^talk 16:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An early non-admin closure was not appropriate given my argument set out above. That the nominator withdrew is irrelevant - if it helps, imagine that I would renominate it myself. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the nomination was not valid; Pontificalibus was right to reopen it. It could have been closed by a non-involved party (and, although I don't like the practice, perhaps by an involved party) during the short window when the nomination had been withdrawn and there were no dissenting votes outstanding. But "Bird Island"'s notability is a fair topic to discuss, and closing this early as if there is unanimous opinion is not right. About the merits, I myself don't like the fact that the coordinates do seem to point to water, and no one seems to really know where the island is. Although I voted "Keep" above and still think that is marginally the best, the option of covering the topic in the atoll article also seems reasonable. If that is done then I think the outcome here should be to "Redirect" to an ((anchor)) in the Bird Island disambiguation page, which page should be revised to include an anchor and to cover both of the Hawaii ones. --do ncr am 19:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Passes WP:GEOLAND. This is a pretty obvious case. Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama could you elaborate as to how you think it passes GEOLAND? Which bit of that policy says we should have an article and not a redirect? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive USGS source This USGS report (pages 37-49) states Pearl and Hermes Atoll consists of "North, Little North, Southeast, Grass, and Seal-Kittery Islands and several small sand spits". This is further supported by the hi-res imagery at NCCOS which doesn't show any land present at the supposed location of Bird Island and also states the atoll consists of "several permanent and numerous ephemeral islets". Perhaps someone named a sand spit Bird Island at one point, whether it's still there is in doubt, and in any case there isn't enough to support a separate article, but it could be mentioned in the atoll's article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:27, 21 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 redirect to Islamic Society of Baltimore. Content remains in the history for interested parties to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Rahmah School[edit]

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

The school is not notable enough to be given a standalone article on wikipedia. Elektricity (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Islamic Society of Baltimore. The coverage in independent reliable sources is marginal, and probably insufficient for a standalone article per WP:GNG and WP:ORG, but the organization which runs it seems to be notable. Pburka (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The president of the US visiting a location does not make it notable. The "secondary schools are notable" idea was born of a model where such places would have hundreds of students in the secondary grades. It was not well thought out and ignored the reality or rural, charter and private schools in the US that were K-12, and is also not well suited to the reality of South Asian education, among many other places it does not work well. Nothing about this school meets any reasonable study of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic Society of Baltimore. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Islamic Society of Baltimore. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:53, 21 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 move to Draft:Matt Flynn (politician). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Flynn (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Recreation of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Flynn (Wisconsin politician), but with entirely different sources and more content, so G4 would not apply. However, the notability guidelines still do not seem to be met -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure, I created the article, but he clearly meets the notability criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I am working on adding more content and sources, especially for the last paragraph. To explain further, the article's subject was twice elected state chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and it appears that others in equivalent positions are considered to meet Wikipedia's standards (see Ken Martin (politician)). Furthermore, there is substantive media coverage of his terms as party chairman, including at least one in-depth feature and other quasi-biographical pieces, and his candidacies for Senate and Congress were extensively covered by the local media. This isn't someone who just appears on the ballot every now and then but someone whose role in Wisconsin politics has been the subject of extensive media coverage. Elixiri (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (draftify also acceptable.) Being a state political party chair is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees an article just because the person existed — and while I can't actually see any of the sources being cited, because the links all lead to a login wall rather than the actual content being cited, their headlines do not suggest that Flynn was the subject of enough of them (as opposed to being namechecked or quoted in coverage of other things or people) to give him the benefit of the doubt on whether he clears WP:GNG or not.
This was also, for the record, recreated shortly after another user approached me, even though I wasn't the nominator the first time and thus there was no real reason for me to be the approachee, to play the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS game because two other past chairs of the Wisconsin Democratic Party had articles without being well-sourced — which backfired, as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments routinely do, as both articles promptly got nominated for deletion too: one got kept because it was able to be sourced much better than it was or this is, while the other got deleted. And I remain convinced that the real reason that people are so determined to create an article about him is not his past role as a state political party chair, but the desire to create a campaign brochure for his current campaign in the gubernatorial primary (which is not in and of itself a reason why a person gets an article on here either.)
So, as always, no prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this and/or he wins the gubernatorial election next year — but the article claims nothing about him that would get him an automatic inclusion freebie now, and the sourcing still isn't where it would need to be to get him past WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to improve the article and its citations, but I guess I don't know exactly what you're looking for. Going off of the guidelines you're citing, I don't see how the current citations fall short. Each of them either treats the subject as the story's focal point or as a key actor. If I am understanding the guideline correctly, this material does indeed "[address] the topic directly and in detail." Elixiri (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft space User:Elixiri, you don't help your case by using password protected links, even though such links are permissible. One problem I am having is that I am not finding some of the material you cite when I run a Proquest news archive search. For example, you cite a 1982 article "A thoughtful politician" to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but I can't find an article by that title on proquest (this could be a glitch in the search, or reflecting th e use of more than one title by the paper.) So I tried simple facts. If he's notable, articles will come up with a man's birth place or his college used as keywords with his name, but my new archive search on "Matt Flynn" + Middlebush came up empty. Searching "Matt Flynn" + Yale + Wisconsin produced only routine, local campaign coverage (Flynn touts endorsements, Democratic connections,). What we need here is In Depth coverage of activities aside form campaigning for office. Or IN DEPTH coverage of his political roles and campaigns that show substantive impact (such as being credited with changing a law, policy, or, say, the Wisconsin Democratic Party in such a way that his role was the mover behind winning or losing elections. Or we need to show that his candidacy is drawing SIGNIFICANT IN DEPTH attention outside Wisconsin. You are allowed to accept a move of this article to your draft space while you work on it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 22 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shantilal Muttha Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure it's notable enough. RyanRO34 (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 4:02, 14 November 2017 (GMT)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Capitals00 (talk) 17:22, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TOPYX[edit]

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

References are either to their listing on Inc's 5000 list, which isn't inherit notability, or to non-notable sources and/or press releases. A WP:BEFORE didn't show much better. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has been more puffery and marketing than substance. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. only trivial awards and placements on unimportant lists. Refes of notices of press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Industry Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources are not independent enough for notability. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 03:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are non-independent except for one which is routine coverage. WP:CORPDEPTH seems to apply here. The article is almost certainly the product of undisclosed paid editing as well. Peacock (talk) 15:09, 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 redirect to Avenged Sevenfold. (non-admin closure) f e minist 14:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zacky Vengeance[edit]

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

Contested redirect & contested PROD. Not individually notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I do find some short entries in guitar player magazines and a few others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold. Everything written about this musician is connected to the band Avenged Sevenfold. Zacky Vengeance has not seen fame from beyond his connection to the band. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs more information, deleting is the wrong way Norschweden (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, @Norschweden: was the editor who contested the redirect and PROD of the article. Please supply this "more information" rather than claim it simply needs more. My argument is that there isn't more information, which is why it's best to delete the article. See GNG and MUSICBIO linked above for what sort of information we need. Without that, it seems obvious that the article would need to be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "would need to be deleted" in an encyclopedia this is rediculus. there is more information about him, and even that what is there at the moment is enough to keep the article imo, most musicians have articles with the same length/information mass Norschweden (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Norschweden:, I'm sorry you feel that way. Unless you can actually show that there's more information about the subject, the article will have to be deleted. Just because there are articles about musicians with the same length or information mass, but are similarly unsourced is not a reason to keep this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - i never got why wikipedia has so much double standart, is it so hard to use the same rules for all articles? both of them are importent personalities and the articles feature information that is not featured in the avenged sevenfold article. I dont have time to write the article. Norschweden (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have time to find the sources? That's the underlying issue. The state of the article is not the issue in any AfD discussion, the notability of the subject is. We prove the subject's notability with sources. If sources can be found, then the subject is notable and someone else (maybe even me) will update the saved article. If not, the community usually determines that the subject doesn't deserve an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 3 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) 00:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Weighing in per the multiple relistings. Bottom line: There simply are not any signs this subject is notable outside of his involvement with this band. Indeed, my google search returned ample hits for his name, each one connect him to Avenged Sevenfold. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:59, 21 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. A redirect can be done outside the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Weyi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a businessman and non-winning minor party candidate in an election, which features no significant improvement in either the substance or the sourcing compared to the version that we deleted in 2015. This is still referenced too heavily to primary sources that are not assisting notability at all, none of the few genuinely reliable sources are new stuff that wasn't already taken into account and judged inadequate last time, and the only real evidence that the creator took the first discussion into account at all is that the new version completely eliminates any mention whatsoever of the minor political party Weyi was a candidate for. Nothing present in this version has bolstered the case for includability at all. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see evidence of passing WP:GNG.--TM 21:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the article. The LA Times, KGNU, Colorado Public Radio and Black Star News.--TM 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which I addressed in my nomination statement: "none of the few genuinely reliable sources are new stuff that wasn't already taken into account and judged inadequate last time". We don't keep an article about every single person who can be shown as having two or three pieces of media coverage — if that were all it took, we would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got media coverage for finding a pig in her yard. To get an article kept on just two or three pieces of RS coverage, they have to be verifying passage of an automatic must-include criterion like a politician actually holding a notable office, an actor winning an Academy Award, a writer winning the Pulitzer or the Booker, and on and so forth — but if a person doesn't pass any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then we need a lot more coverage than Mrs. Yasinowksi and her pig got before a subject passes "notable because media coverage exists". Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is your definition, but that's not the Wikipedia standard of WP:GNG. Multiple, independent, in-depth sources. The burden is on you to prove it doesn't meet GNG.--TM 17:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG standard is not passed the moment two or three or four pieces of coverage exist without regard to context — as I correctly pointed out earlier, if that were all it took then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour and the pig. If you're shooting for "passes GNG just because media coverage exists, even though nothing stated in the article actually passes any SNGs", then it does take considerably more media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote and point to a policy that indicates what you just wrote is correct? There are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the topic. I am only aware of GNG as governing this, so if there is another policy, please quote it.--TM 00:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then my mother's neighbour and her pig clear GNG too, because I can show exactly as many pieces of reliable source coverage for her as are present here. I trust you'd agree that she's not encyclopedically notable, however — but if passing an arbitrary number of sources were all it took and there were no need to evaluate the context in which that coverage was given, then what grounds would there be to deem her less notable than Weyi? Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The standard hear is notability for politicians. That is a higher bar than GNG, because politicians inherently get some routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weyi is a politician in Central Africa and yet has coverage in a number of mainstream newspapers and websites on another continent (even in different states). Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." Can you honestly say it doesn't pass WP:BASIC?--TM 01:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has coverage in a number of mainstream newspapers and websites on another continent (even in different states) because he lived in the United States at the time that he decided to move back to the DRC to run for president, so there was a local human interest angle to the story. That's not the same thing as getting coverage because newspapers organically noticed or paid attention to a non-winning political candidate in a foreign country they wouldn't ordinarily cover. It wasn't coverage that attests to international fame; it was coverage that attests to "local resident does stuff". Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's value-judging the sources. We really, really should avoid that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we avoid that, then in comes the article about my mother's neighbour and her pig — because if we're only allowed to count the number of sources, but not to evaluate their context, then pig lady gets in as has the same number of potential sources that this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the neighbor's pig passes GNG and fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. For the topic at hand, stories covering a political loss contribute to GNG, and should not be discounted by the personal likes and dislikes of editors. Unscintillating (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, stories covering a political loss do not contribute to GNG. Being a non-winning candidate for office is not a Wikipedia notability criterion in and of itself, but every non-winning candidate for anything could always show some sources for the fact of their candidacy — which would mean that everybody who was ever a candidate for any political office would always clear GNG. For a non-winning candidate to actually clear GNG, rather, it's necessary to show a depth and breadth of sourcing that marks their candidacy out as exponentially more notable in its own right than most other people's candidacies, which is not demonstrated by just showing the same number of sources that any other candidate could have shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Routine coverage only; fails WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine coverage" that "fails WP:GNG" is an oxymoron. Unscintillating (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 00:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that coverage by the Los Angeles Times of a citizen (or former citizen?) of Colorado is being deemed "local" interest. However, GNG does not exclude local sources, as what Wikipedia wants is reliable sources. Unscintillating (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does accord local sources less weight than national ones in many contexts. If the context of what such sources are covering the person for is not something that would pass a notability criterion right on its face, then the existence of three or four pieces of local sourceability is not in and of itself a GNG pass just because an arbitrary number of sources has been shown. If it were, we would have to keep articles about every person who ever ran for political office anywhere at all, everybody who was ever police chief or fire chief of anywhere, teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them in the local paper because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes, everybody who was ever president of an elementary school parent-teacher association or a church bake sale committee, and, yes, my mother's neighbour with the pig. We do not just count the footnotes and keep everything that gets to or surpasses three of them: we do evaluate the context in which the coverage is being given, and accord it significantly less weight if there's nothing inherently encyclopedic about that context. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, GNG does not weight "encyclopedic" coverage. If this were true, you'd be able to cite from the guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, trying to find the substance of the above reply: GNG is not sufficient for WP:Events (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), WP:ORG (WP:AUD), and new organizations and future events (WP:SUSTAINED). For the context here; GNG is applicable, local sources are ok, and weight is accorded to significant coverage. The LA Times article contributes to GNG notability. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, we have to keep an article about every single person or thing that can be shown as the subject of two or three articles in any newspaper anywhere for any reason whatsoever — including every person who ever ran for any political office anywhere at all, everybody who was ever police chief or fire chief of anywhere, teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them in the local paper because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes, everybody who was ever president of an elementary school parent-teacher association or a church bake sale committee, and my mother's neighbour with the pig. I don't think you'll find many people around here who would agree with such extreme inclusionism, because it would make us less valuable as an encyclopedia if we had no content standards and just kept everything about everybody who could merely be verified to exist. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionism and deletionism are not relevant to this discussion. What we are talking about now is that GNG is a low bar as Wikipedia is paperless, but since Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, we have several groups of topics in which passing GNG is not also a WP:N pass. But people is not one of them. Your ideas to apply new GNG filters is not currently part of the GNG guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever about this represents "my" idea to apply "new" GNG filters. AFD has an established consensus that because any candidate for any office could always show three or four sources for the fact, but candidates are not automatically notable just for the fact of being candidates per se, candidates are not deemed to pass GNG just because you can show the same perfectly normal and unexceptional number of normal and unexceptional sources that absolutely any candidate for anything could always show. This is not shit I made up myself — this is a long-established standard that AFD has rightly applied for years because we do not want to become a repository of promotional campaign brochures for people whose only notability claim is that they ran for office and lost. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "Nothing whatsoever about this represents "my" idea to apply "new" GNG filters.", but you had no response when I said, "No, GNG does not weight "encyclopedic" coverage. If this were true, you'd be able to cite from the guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC) As for your claims of what has happened for years at AfD, perhaps you should use your skills as an editor to document those claims in an essay. Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The onus would be on you to demonstrate how the depth of coverage being shown here was encyclopedic in the first place — as I've pointed out many times above, there are lots of people in the world who have been the subject of three or four pieces of media coverage but still weren't anything we would accept as notable, because the context of what they were getting coverage for wasn't something that would be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia. We do not simply keep every single article that happens to surpass a raw number of footnotes: we most certainly do look at the context in which those footnotes exist, and deprecate certain types of coverage as not adequate support for notability. We most certainly do require non-winning candidates for office to either already have had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of their candidacy, or be able to show that they got significantly more coverage than most other candidates for office could always show — we do not, and never have, kept non-winning candidates for political office just because they can show three or four sources, because every non-winning candidate for office could always show three or four sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we all need to step back, have a nice cup of tea, and remember that Wikipedia is not paper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the (delayed) election, Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2018, where a "Candidates" section can be added and he can be mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 21 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. This seems like something that should be notable - ping me and I can restore it to userspace if anyone wants. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International University Theatre Forum in Vilnius[edit]

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

A festival for university theaters (by definition, amateur theaters) with no indication of notability. Google reveals a few "forum invites you to such and such performance" but not much else. PROD declined because two books are listed (not inline references, no page numbers). One of the is available on Google books and has no mention of Vilnius. Renata (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was going to vote keep on the basis of those book sources but as one of them does not have Vilnius in the search I will wait for other's comments. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 03:21, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harmontown podcast episodes[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT. The page is a long list of podcast episode titles, with no references that suggest any of the episodes are individually notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I recently edited this article because it didn't have a uniformed format. I will be inserting podcast synopses. Please do not delete. Thank you!

Meanbuttbutt (talk)Meanbuttbutt —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and per the nominators reasoning that none of the episodes themselves are individually notable. Ajf773 (talk) 11:20, 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 no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of the Wolf Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The references just repeat promotional blurbs from the facebook page of the film except for the fangoria article which is a promotional puff piece. I couldn't find a single review from a reliable source online and no articles about the film that had any actual content. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 31 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} 02:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM. Comatmebro (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. Dread Central, Fangoria, and Bloody Disgusting are acceptable sources for such. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 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. Reviews found which establishes notability, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka (band)[edit]

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

Non notable band, There's this and this (both are in the article) however I don't think these are enough to establish notability, Unfortunately the only things I'm finding on Google are all related to Karnataka, Fails BAND & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 1 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} 02:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep found this, this and this Atlantic306 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 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. Reviews found which establishes notability, Although there's a Delete !vote present in some respects their !votes now moot anyway as per IAR closing this as speedy, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panic Room (band)[edit]

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

Non notable band, no evidence of notability, Fails BAND & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to note Anne-Marie Helder (a member of the band) is also at AFD > Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne-Marie Helder, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete all sources are promotional Hiponduion (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Sourcing for this article is bad and the best WP:ATD-R target is also at AfD. A Train^talk 08:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found [37]this this this this and this passes WP:GNG, there are a lot of articles about them in Team Rock which is the online version of Classic Rock magazine. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trustbox[edit]

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

Previously a Prod with rationale "Previously deleted on English Wikipedia as Trustbox (service) and multiple times on Danish Wikipedia. The visible references are poor; no evidence that this product has attained notability. Fails WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG.". The Prod was removed by the WP:SPA article author, so I am now bringing this to AfD. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for requested deletion: your points are 1) visible references are poor. The references are to danish newspapers - which are widely distributed and acknowledged sources of information. For more references see - https://trustbox.dk/om-os/media-omtale/ 2) no evidence that this product has attained notability - please read trustbox's website for validation of this. It clearly shows how recognized it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N4nd3rS32Lw (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N4nd3rS32Lw (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable and with perfectly fine references.Ramblersen (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, and an Alexa ranking of "9,452,099" is a claim of non-notability. Secondary references are all in Danish, and appear to be trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the references are not WP:RS. There's a few in Danish which I tried to evaluate; one was behind a paywall, another was (based on auto-translate) about data hijacking, not specifically about Trustbox. I don't see anything in the article itself which makes me think this is anything other than Yet Another Cloud Storage Startup, which nothing special about it. And, not surprisingly, the article was created by a WP:SPA. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 22 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. Reviews found which establishes notability, Although there's a Delete !vote present in some respects their !votes now moot anyway as per IAR closing this as speedy, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Helder[edit]

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

Non notable musician, Nothing shows up on G News or Books that establishes any notability Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to note her band Panic Room (band) is also up at AFD > Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panic Room (band), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been reviewed in Classic Rock and had airplay on BBC Radio 2. Will search for more references later. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 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 14:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found this this and this Atlantic306 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 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. Even discounting the "if someone is only known for playing hockey, they must pass the notability guidelines for hockey players" argument, this is a universal delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Badduke[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This subject actually comes close to and possibly passes GNG. He does fail NHOCKEY, but not by much. He has 169 regular season games (175 including playoffs) so not that far off from the 200 standard. He was at worst in the top 4 in penalty minutes, not scoring as per our standard but still a statistic that gets measured and gets attention. As for coverage, he has a very good article here and a lesser article (but still with him as the subject here, although both are from syracuse.com so count as one source. On newspapers.com there a couple of articles behind a paywall from Tallahassee Democrat on which he is in the headline as a subject, one from March 3, 1998 about an incident in which he got suspended, and one which appears to be a more significant article from January 8, 1998 about his joining the Tiger Sharks to become their enforcer. He also gets a few sentences in this article and a little coverage that isn't worth much in this article. So overall he probably has at least 2 sources of significant coverage (although if someone can access the Tallahassee Democrat the coverage there may be less than I think) and some less significant coverage (i'd give about 1/4-1/3 credit) from Portland Tribune and maybe a tiny bit of credit from the Baltimore Sun. That begins to suggest possibly meeting GNG, especially when his career ended about 20 years ago so there could well be coverage not easily accessible. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete if someone is only known for playing hockey, they must pass the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is completely false and a drastic misreading of WP:NHOCKEY. If someone passes GNG by attracting significant coverage in multiple sources for playing hockey he meets the necessary notability requirements, even if he doesn't meet any of the specific criteria in NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a standard for a reason and its only a presumption for a reason. Since under 200 games, just rely on GNG. All we have here is a news release, so zero sources. From the content maybe he could pass considering his number was semi-retired. But until those sources are actually found, we don't presume since under the threshold and therefore delete. RonSigPi (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per RonSigPi. Even the standard's only a presumption, and if Badduke had played 300 games in the AHL the article would have to meet the GNG all the same. Since the notability of the article's been challenged, it's up to anyone seeking to save it to produce qualifying sources. Ravenswing 07:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, doesn't meet Wikipedia:NHOCKEY guidelines, and I don't see any other reason why he might qualify for an article. PK T(alk) 20:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He meets none of the hockey notability criteria and also fails to meet WP:GNG. A little coverage about his frequent fighting penalties in local papers is the best I could find and I don't think that's enough. Papaursa (talk) 18:35, 20 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. Also, any discussions on whether to merge this to a hypothetical future List of improvised firearms does not need to be at AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paltik[edit]

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

Really belongs in improvised firearm; only differs from others by the name used locally. Anmccaff (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Paltik definitely meets GNG. There is quite an industry for producing these, a large market, and quite a bit of sources (which are absent in the low quality article). The question here really is about merging to improvised firearm while leaving a redirect to the section there. Paltik, Galkatas, and Improvised firearm (which seems to be focused on the really improvised side as opposed to more organized low-scale production by blacksmiths and metal shops) all need improvement. I'm undecided beyond this not being a delete (so keep or merge).Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Paltik industry definitely passes GNG, and Paltiks have common characteristics between themselves that differentiate them from other metal shop weapon production in other parts of the world. Improvised Firearm is a poor merge target - focusing on much lower grade firearms.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Icewhiz, I think your logic is clearly suggesting the merge is the proper way to go. Consider zip gun. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are a "step up" from a zip gun - which is really improvised and homemade. Here we have manufacturing by metal workshops - so small batches of similar weapons (as well as some commonality in the region) - it's basically the way pre-industrial swords or early firearms (e.g. Tanegashima (Japanese matchlock)) were made. Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it does not appear to be a "step up" from the hundreds of other examples of improvised firearms which have plagued the world for too long. Is there anything fundamentally different between this industry and, say, the blacksmiths that made similar weapons in Armenia during the Turkish suppression, or the Mau Mau weapons? The improvised firearm covers the spectrum of weapons from poor quality to "high-quality arms produced by cottage industries", which seems to be precisely where this falls. What am I missing? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: The term itself does meet GNG. The source of my vacillation is the article focus of Improvised firearm, which also states in the lead - An improvised firearm is a firearm manufactured other than by a firearms manufacturer or a gunsmith (emphasis added) and focuses on homemade guns. The Paltiks are an example, to my understanding, of manufacture by a gunsmith (or people who could be seen as gunsmiths) in low-rate serial production (note - the actual Paltik article doesn't really reflect this - and quality of the Paltik article is poor) - see here - Philippine gun makers take aim from the backyard to the production line (Reuters 2012)(referring to gunsmiths who make Paltiks) or 1997 AP video - showing a Palik production shop. Improvised firearm would require quite a bit of work and rewrite to accommodate these properly.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with either Keep or Merge to Improvised firearm. I've added refs to the article and cut some of the uncited text. I'm okay with either suggestions. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, this passes WP:GNG. Improvised firearm is a more general topic. List of improvised firearms might be something worth creating, but for now, this is worthy of being independently kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is simply the Filipino word for home made gun. It is not a recognized English language term and has no meaning outside was the Philippines.--RAF910 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those are policy-based reasons to delete; indeed the second falls foul of WP:CSB... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 21 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) 18:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Bishop[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine sports reporting and he fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for ice hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 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 redirect to Gwalior#Lashkar Subcity. (non-admin closure) f e minist 14:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lashkar Gwalior[edit]

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

Not mentioned in its single reference, not listed in the 2011 census. Demographics fictitious, the rest of the article just a tourist guide. Lashkar is an area of Gwalior, but WP:TNT recommended. Batternut (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gwalior#Lashkar Subcity. The subregion does exist, and it is discussed in the municipality's article, so the redirect is clear and reasonable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 3 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) 00:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, the city region certainly exists and is commonly used on maps, in travel sites, hotel booking sites, and so forth. The only question, therefore, is whether it justifies a separate article or should be redirected to its parent city, Gwalior. The article is currently poorly cited, but the Lashkar district is mentioned in reliable sources like the Financial Times, stating "in 1809, Daulat Rao Scindia took the town and pitched his tents to the south of the fort in an area called Lashkar, which became Gwalior’s new town, with palaces, wide streets, gardens and the royal “chhatris” of these new rulers, now deserted and decayed. The two towns are now effectively one, although it was Lashkar that was the capital of Gwalior state, one of the “princely states” formulated by the British during the Raj". The fact that Lashkar was the state capital says to me that it is certainly notable, and must be discussed in many sources. Britannica says it's a "city" with "many palaces". I'd be inclined to keep this, as substantial places are notable, and the district has an interesting history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support (as proposer) redirect to Gwalior#Lashkar Subcity. Eventually enough may be said about it to require WP:SPINOFF to a subarticle, but it is a very central part of modern Gwalior and their history is intertwined (eg the Lashkar Municipal Corporation), so I think keeping it together now will yield the best results. Batternut (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, insufficient sources cited that discuss this district specifically. Sandstein 14:20, 21 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. The article, as noted, does need a lot of work, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginaria[edit]

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

Apparently not notable, zero sources and basically an article-long table. Should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 21:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Considering. this is an awesome, in-depth, RS... but the only one I've found so far. There may be more, in which case this would be a clear keep, but I'm leaning keep even on the basis of this one source, but GNG is not met by a single source, no matter how good it is. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with this as well, I'd call that two fantastic RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Is Spoutly considered a reliable source by the respective WikiProject? Either way, I doubt that two sources count as "significant coverage" (WP:SIGCOV). Lordtobi (✉) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Significant coverage has to do with the depth of the article, and both of these are quite in depth. What you're looking for is multiple, and two is multiple, hence enough to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, I'd be fine with keeping the article if it could, to an extend, be entirely rewritten to not be a 51-lines-and-2-sections-long list succeeded by a 404 link and preceeded only by three poorly written sentences. Lordtobi (✉) 07:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Jclemens has dug up two sources that ought to be added to the article. The nominator just above here has basically conceded that the article merely needs to be improved in quality. I hope that the subsequent "improvement" doesn't involve gutting the long lists. Yeah, it's a mess and needs sourcing, but it looks to be a labor of love, covering some foundational works in early computer animation. Note that some of the individual items on this list have their own wikipages. (eg, The Adventures of André and Wally B. and More Bells and Whistles) This list-y page is thus providing more context and background data for those pages. Gpc62 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list could/should be condensed at least into a table with a slightly lower font size, so that it not majorly putwigths text content. Better visualziation would also be possible. Lordtobi (✉) 08:09, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TouchTunes[edit]

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

Delete - References fail the criteria for establishing notability and are not "intellectually independent". Most references I can find are either company announcements or based on company announcements or rely exclusively on quotations and interviews with related personnel. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 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. Given the BLP issues involved, I'm going ahead and WP:SNOW-ing this. As JPL notes, this might be a notable topic, but as a properly-referenced article, not a BLP-violation-bait list. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities accused of sexual misconduct after Harvey Weinstein[edit]

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

This is getting a bit out of hand. Wikipedia is not news and not a directory. Not only are the names included due to synth and original research but also...why this content fork? As in, why are allegations after the Weinstein case listed when this has gone on for the past year? Are the politicians a part of this broadening scope? Editors are falling too deeply for recentism without considering if this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the reasons stated by the nominator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I moved the article to the current title, but that was by no means an endorsement. I don't think that a list of this description is appropriate for Wikipedia. It is a bit of synth... also where would the list end? would nit just be any allegations from now onward? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm an advocate of Wikipedia having a role to play in current events, I think this is a pretty good example of a situation the full significance of which is not going to become apparent until after the fact. It's clear that the "Me too" campaign has empowered some women to go public with accusations that they had withheld before, but completely unclear at this time what that trend means. An article on this period of time will probably be in the encyclopedia someday, but only after the sociology and psychology of the events is evaluated in retrospect. Thus, a simple list is not really encyclopedic at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

See Weinstein effect for an article that we already seem to have on the topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Goes against the grain of BLP policy to use Weinstein as a starting point in the title and content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a tabloid newspaper. We have a BLP policy for a reason. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lost of problems in this. BLP problems in putting people on a list for some indefinite "accused" and I have issues with "sexual misconduct". Offering job promotions if someone gives you sexual favors is a differt sort of behavior than forcing them to have sex with you. Weinstein has been accused of both. Another factor is the Weinstein accusations have been building for years. Also, Weinstein was not the first celebrity to fall due to such accusations. Accusations of sexual harrasment have been going around for years, treated in different ways in different situations due to a whole slew of factors. Roman Polanski and Bill Cosby come to mind as people accused long before Weinstein, but there are others. Weinstein and his company had actually apparently settled some of the cases related to some of these accusations in the past, so dating the accusation of Weinstein is an issue. One might argue we could rename to "List of celebrities accused of sexual misconduct after Harvey Weinstein was accused in an article in the New York Times". However I am not sure an amorphouse term like "sexual misconduct" is what is needed here. There might be a potential Fall 2017 accusations of sexual harrasment and assault against media executives and actors or something along those lines, but it should be more than just a list, it should be a substantive article, flowing out of reliable source writing on the subject, and I do not think the reliable source writing has coalesced enough to make an article under that title. On the other hand, we may even have articles some what related to this topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times does have this article [38] but while I can see including any information not yet present in the related articles, I am not convinced it justifies a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 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.