< 18 November 20 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internext[edit]

Internext (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. No primary/secondary sources; 2. Stub; 3. Non-notable Aftab104 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 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.  Sandstein  08:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of proven or alleged pre-Weinstein historical sexual assaults in the entertainment industry[edit]

List of proven or alleged pre-Weinstein historical sexual assaults in the entertainment industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to be notable; although the string of sexual abuse claims made after the Weinstein claims might be notable, these certainly aren't. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is less likely to be deleted: a new Sexual harassment in the entertainment industry article or an expansion of the Casting couch article?Growlies (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of them, if done well. But, the scope of this list (basically, what it includes) is a bit arbitrary. It would probably be ok to create a new article with a similar title, removed pre-Weinstein historical, and possible "alleged" (because there might be BLP violations there), and then include this as a section (as the Weinstein allegations seem to be opening up a new "chapter", per se, in terms of how sexual harassment is dealt with in entertainment). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:52, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Roadster (2020)[edit]

Tesla Roadster (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with the Tesla Semi, this is an instance that is specifically addressed by the policy WP:CRYSTAL. Product announcemnts, even from reliable sources, are are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Everything we know about this future product comes entirely from self-published information by the product vendor. Aside from a raft of extraordinary claims, a complete specification has not been published, so it impossible for independent sources to even speculate as to whether this future product is at all feasible. Even if we had detailed specifications, and even if a prototype had been independently tested under conditions not stage managed by the product vendor, it is impossible to predict whether it can actually be mass produced at the claimed level of performance. Obvious objections are addressed by allusion to unseen future manufacturing processes. Reliable sources describe this as "showmanship"[1] and "fueling hype and excitement in a way that only Musk can"[2]. Policy clearly says we do not immediately create a new article in response to a splashy media unveiling. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • These quotes from the New York Times and Greentech Media are taken out of context and represented in a misleading way. Neither article questions the feasibility of the 2020 Tesla Roadster’s advertised specs, or questions whether it will be produced. The words “showmanship” and “hype” are used in a positive, complimentary way. Deepdeepocean (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, please read WP:OSE. It's a violation of several policies to demand another editor take any action. See WP:NOTMANDATORY, for example. Wikipedia is built one tiny piece at a time. We each make our own tiny corner of Wikipedia better without having to be held responsible for boatloads of other articles. The kind of personal and confrontational tone contained in statements like "will the nominator be nominating for deletion the blah blah blah" is a violation of the civility policy and assumption of good faith. Do not invite other edtiors to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. This AfD decision hinges on the merits of the article, not other stuff.
    Second, a concept car is not an announced future product. They are self-contained works that serve a finite purpose: generally to showcase some new technology or styling idea. Sometimes just to make a statement about the company. Concept cars are not future products; they exist now. The crystal ball policy does not apply to them. It's true that sometimes concept cars are the ancestors (usually distant ones) of production cars, but we don't write articles about a hypothetical production car suggested by a concept shown at a show. Neither the Roadster 2 or the Semi are concept cars. They are future products that were announced just days ago, and the 'What Wikipedia is not' policy has a carefully written section on future products which is unmistakably aimed at exactly these cases. (Since you brought it up, that Porsche Mission E article is crystal ball crap and it should go, but I'll leave that as an exercise for others to deal with.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This car physically exists, and works, so it is something that is a "thing". It's publicly revealed, and publicly trialed. It is like any other public object, it has coverage from its existence. Instead of treating it as a future product (without actual public physical hardware) it can be considered a physical object that has been publicly seen. It still meets notability requirements as such a thing. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Publicly trialed"? What are you talking about? Source please. This car has not been tested. I hope you don't mean these theatrics. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was clearly stated: product announcements are not appropriate encyclopedic content. See WP:CRYSTAL. Relevant quote: "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Retimuko (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that in this context that policy doesn't apply, nor does this article fail the specific additional guidelines that have been adopted for new automotive models. I would suggest to re-read WP:NOTE and WP:DP specifically as that is the governing policy for this project. What you say is "not appropriate encyclopedic content" is not policy on Wikipedia. If you were relying strictly off of the press release and only the press release, it would be problems with WP:PRIMARY, but even that isn't the case here. Your standard is absurdly high for what it is that you are insisting as a reliable source and I really can't see what would possibly even pass the muster of whatever it is that might make this into an article worthy of keeping if it was strictly up to you. There also seems to be zero effort here to actually work to a consensus or suggest alternatives. You just want this article deleted and salted to ensure it will never be written. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
> Robert Horning "There also seems to be zero effort here to actually work to a consensus or suggest alternatives. You just want this article deleted and salted to ensure it will never be written."
What sort of misrepresentation of my words and assumption of bad faith was this? I wish Tesla the best of luck and want to see this article in due course and about an actual product. Currently half of the article is in the future tense. I cited the policy regarding merging into a larger topic (Tesla article) and suggested this in my very first message here. How can you say that I don't suggest alternatives? If we just keep the facts, it will be just a short section, and likely stay that way for another year or two. Retimuko (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest an alternative then. Under what possible conditions would you consider that this article ought to be kept? When the Tesla Roadster II goes in front of an independent reviewer to tear it apart and can individually show each part? When an academic peer reviewed article detailing the specs of this vehicle appears in some formal journal? I'm not seeing the standard here.
If you wanted to have this merged into the general Tesla article, then that should have been your position instead of deletion. I'm also suggesting that your interpretation of policy is in error here and doesn't apply to what is the case here. I've long felt that mergers were akin to deletion anyway, but until the above statement you didn't even suggest merger was an option in your view.
We can disagree on that point and seek arbitration on that point by arguing specific policy points, but my assertion is that since this is an announced vehicle showing up in annual and quarterly reports for this company rather than rumor and speculation that it could be a vehicle (which would be a crystal ball issue), your assertion no longer applies. The assertion that only one source of information exists is also in error, even though performance specs haven't been "independently tested". Qualifications about the source of that information can and should be put into the article as editorial issues and not a part of the decision as to if this article needs to be kept or not. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Duplicate vote: Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I suggest you read Wikipedia:Snowball clause more carefully, as well as WP:Assume good faith. You clearly did not read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. If you had read WP:BADNAC, the very first thing listed is "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved". You already !voted above. You have made numerous arguments bqaed on well known fallacies and I suggest this is something you should step away from until you've had more experience. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

To Deepdeepocean for attempting to NAC an AfD they had !voted in, and to Dennis Bratland for reverting an inappropriate early closure without asking an an uninvolved administrator to do so, as BADNAC ifself asserts. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1042449
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=lAQGBxtLSWU
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exinda[edit]

Exinda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An extremely small and non notable company--the references are mostly just mentions, with some short notices, and a little PR. None of them provide a basis for an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as I read that rather confusing DelRev, it was decided that since the basis for previous deletions was copyvio, that this should not prevent re-creation from a non-copyvio stub, and that an afd to discuss other factors could be held subsequently. There was no decision there about possible notability. We should have done this afd a lot earlier. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 2014, Exinda released updates to its Network Orchestrator product. The updates included integrated captive portal policies, adaptive response quotas, and HTTP caching!" Etc.
WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no exclamation mark in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I personally don't view articles about companies as "spam" as some sort of immediate default. If one feels that content regarding the company's updates in the article serves as advertising, why not remove the two sentences, rather than the entire article? North America1000 01:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exinda has received sustained coverage between 2003 and 2012. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the significant independent coverage WP:N needs, and also not the material exempt from WP:Deletion policy on WP:Not catalog. SwisterTwister talk 14:10, 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 snowball keep. There's no possibility that this will be closed any way other than keep, and keeping it open is just process for processes sake with the potential to cause bad feeling. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Semi[edit]

Tesla Semi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an annonced future product of a type that is specifically addressed by the policy WP:CRYSTAL: "...short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."

In the words of one of the cited sources: ''Tonight's Tesla Semi unveiling in Hawthorne, California wasn't about the nitty-gritty information, though. It was about fueling hype and excitement in a way that only Musk can." There are no independently verifiable facts about this future product, no published specification. The only information we have is self-published by the product's vendor. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, this is not a short article. The implications of the announcement are huge. Thousands of people dying because of pollution, thousands dying because of drugged or drowsy semi drivers. The truck will revolutionize the industry. If you do a search on a given 24 hour period you will find thousands of hits on this topic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To say nothing of the children. I didn't even think of the children. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP:V works. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used the word "verify" not in the same sense as WP:V. Yes, we can verify that Musk said certain things. I love electric cars, and wish Tesla the best of luck, but the article is about a bunch of promises at this point. Retimuko (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but they're still promises that have been widely reported on in the media. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic content. A quote from WP:CRYSTAL: "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Retimuko (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity of a topic doesn't mean it is encyclopedic, but it is a strong indication. WP:CRYSTAL product announcement is intended for the myriad of product announcements that happen readily, like a new version of car. Done with a press release and a couple of paragraphs of relevant info. In comparison there are working prototypes demonstrated to live audience, orders being taken, detailed specs released, including pricing. http://tesla.com/semi Product is being discussed widely from several perspectives and continues to be referenced widely in the media everyday. The article continues to be expanded everyday. And daily page views show the exceptional value of this page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was the correct answer a half of decade ago. Why no one listened to this user is beyond me. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
— Deepdeepocean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - It's vaporware. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Plamondon[edit]

Jim Plamondon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for 2601:600:9680:3041:89a8:632d:128b:b4f, who wrote: Violates Autobiography:Creating an article about yourself. Violates Notability. Violates:Biographies of Living People:Maintenance of BLPs. ansh666 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:30, 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 keep. At the risk of getting accused of nose-counting, I'll observe that the !vote tally is running about 2:1 in favor of keep. But, this isn't nose counting, so I also took a deeper look at the arguments.

The basic point of contention between the two camps is what defines a scandal?. Most of the delete arguments are variations on There's no objective inclusion criteria. Looking at WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:LISTN, I can't convince myself that the level of ambiguity inherent in defining a scandal is sufficient to raise this concern from one of needs editorial cleanup to needs to be deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal political scandals in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of federal political scandals in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire article is OR based on some editors choice of what is a scandel, it is in itself a BLP violation Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of replacing this article’s lead-in paragraphs which describe the inclusion criteria used, which was removed by 2606:a000:6444:4700:59d0:5215:432b:c56 on the 16th, replaced by both Hmains and Favonia, when the information was removed once again by DarknessShines, 6 minutes (co-incidence?) before Nomination for Deletion. I think it is unfair that editors and administrators alike do not have easy access to the very information which is being discussed.
I also note that the lead in articles for both Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are entirely OR with no citations or reliable sources listed. I also note they are both locked.Johnsagent (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have removed again per WP:V It's a BLP and addition of any uncited commentary violates a fair few policies Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.” This is NOT a severe case, Metropolitan90 mentions only two minor issues, neither fatal. Keep unchanged. Valleyjc (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: could you articulate a workable set of criteria for inclusion and exclusion? cnzx (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely a list of political scandals that involve officials from the government of the United States. Sounds like an obvious and simple criterion for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sure, let's delete all pages that describe how officials of country X have been convicted of crime or became subjects of scandals or even controversies. That will probably satisfy someone's POV. However, doing so would be strongly against the purpose of encyclopedia, that is to provide important and reliable information, and of course that would be against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (see public figures). The list is focusing on important public figures. This is right thing to do per our policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SCANDALS is the name of the article. Conviction and Resignation are the general criteria though there others. Nixon, Anthony Weiner, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales. Is there anyone who would not call them scandals? None were convicted of anything, yet their resignations just before investigation or trial (which might have proven their innocence) speak volumes.
RECENTISM? That’s a new one. Of course, there are more crooks now, thanks to population increase. Duh.
ADMINISTRATORS - My I ask you changes the rules somehow? To sneak in a Deletion on a holiday sucks.Newlenp (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should only list 'scandals' that are at least 5yr old or older, so the dust around the scandal has time to settle and the accounting of it is most accurate? Just a thought, C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A time limit? Wikipedia works not only as an Encyclopedia, but a Newspaper as well. Rather than 5 years, death would be a better limit to satisfy BLP, that way no one could complain. But who wants to wait two or three decades to include Hillary or Donald? Keep unchanged.Orliepie (talk) 19:15, 26 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) 16:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poona Public School[edit]

Poona Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article have been created in 2011 and without any references it survived almost 7 years #1997kB 17:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant research to track it down, so I've struck some of my remarks above. However, I'm not totally sure it's still the same school. Same name, yes, but its website states its a primary school founded in 2002, not a secondary school founded in 1950 as per the article. I'd be OK with a delete, but feel a redirect would probably still be better, especially as the target section does state Private schools are operated by charitable trusts. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might be reading the date of the Mumbai Public Trust Act 1950 as the date of the school. The addresses match. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, you are right. I think, on balance, I'm now going to strike my first !vote, and go for delete, too, as not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 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 keep. Consensus is the work done by AngusWOOF is just enough to make the article acceptable in mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Briner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Justin Briner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To paraphrase from the declined version of the draft, this is a clear case of WP:BOMBARD with no indication of WP:GNG being met. 95% of the (massive number of) references do little more than verify that Briner voiced XYZ role, with the remainder being interviews or his own accounts. Recommending histmerging this back into the draft (because it was improperly cut/pasted) and allowing the creator another go. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already worked what I could into the article. It's more whether he's going to meet notability despite the effort. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Keep based on recent comments here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reedsy[edit]

Reedsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The only substantial piece that I could find that would count towards the GNG is the cited piece in the Guardian. The rest of the coverage is your standard press release churn from trade pubs, Tech Crunch (not an RS). The Telegraph piece is both a trivial mention and a primary source as it is based on quotes from the CEO of the company and isn't independent. On the whole, I don't see a GNG pass either from a BEFORE search or based on the sourcing in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Publishers Weekly doesn't count toward notability. Seriously? Publishers Weekly is the dominant source in the publishing industry. Period. It devoted an entire article on Reedsy. Forbes, Evening Standard, The Guardian et al all devoted serious attention to Reedsy, and all have editorial oversight; their reputations will all suffer if they print untrue stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes doesn't have editorial oversight for their contributors. They did not devote a full article. A blogger did. Publishers Weekly did give it brief coverage, yes, and it is certainly a reliable source. The question becomes whether it was intellectually independent, which I think it's fair to say it wasn't. The article is a short blurb that was likely based on material provided by the firm. Iri has already addressed theGuardian below. The Evening Standard piece was written as tips from the CEO: that's both primary and not intellectually independent. Intellectual independence from the company is what we require in sourcing, and I see virtually none here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any reliable publication such as Forbes or Publishers Weekly or TechCrunch has a reputation to protect. That's vital for them. Regardless of how they get their news, they're not going to publish junk or untrue stuff since doing so would risk their reputation. In that sense, they're all exercising editorial oversight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The Guardian is a credible source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained to you above, while its news coverage is written by real journalists and constitutes a reliable source, its other sections are based on an "open journalism" model in which anyone can submit an article, and are no more reliable than Buzzfeed. (As for the notion that the present-day Evening Standard—which was once a legitimate newspaper but is now a ridiculous Russian rag given out free to passers-by at railway stations—constitutes a reliable source for anything, words fail me.) ‑ Iridescent 17:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian -- arguably the most respected newspaper in Britain-- printed the article on Reedsy. That the writer was a freelance journalist specializing in e-commerce is irrelevant. The Guardian printed it. It's a reliable source. I'm less sure about Evening Standard but the numerous other sources clearly suggest Reedsy is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the most respected newspaper in Britain—where on earth are you getting that from? Even the Grauniad itself wouldn't claim that, and in terms of public trust it consistently polls below Wikipedia itself. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that can be helpful, here's a long list of articles on our AngelList Page, that mention Reedsy. Here's also another one in The Guardian and one in BBC World News. Feel free to do your own due diligence but please don't disregard too quickly a company that's actually providing the best product for indie authors on the market. I decided to create a dedicated page after the company was included in the self-publishing page. Many thanks,Neguev(talk) 11:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian source is from an open journalism freelancer as Iri pointed out above. AngeList is your own social media. BBC World News video (not text article) is an interview with you, which makes it a primary source and non-independent source, which we don't count towards notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence these sources are copying and pasting press releases? That should be easy to prove. Just saying it doesn't make it true.. -- GreenC 15:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll go through them one-by-one.
Source 6 is an interview with the CEO: this does not count towards the GNG because it is a primary source that is not independent of the subject, failing both WP:N and WP:ORGIND. The parts Cunard cited were the lead up sentences to the interview.
Source 4, when read in context, is the same thing. Quotes from the CEO and filler sentences in between the quotes with marketing language. It is highly likely that this was either taken from a corporate fact sheet that the CEO brought with him or that the author paraphrased him. Also a primary source and failure of ORGIND. Also appears to be a blog post that is part of a series where they interview startups. Literally every startup on the planet could find similar coverage because this is part of the business plan these days.
Source 5 is by the same publisher as source 4, and has similar issues. It also appears to be a blogpost.
Publishers Weekly, while a reliable source for verifying information is not always a reliable source for confirming notability: it is still trade press and trade press often relies on information provided directly by the company with little editorial oversight. We normally exclude these per ORGIND.
Source 2: same author, so lacks intellectual independence from Source 3 even if we accept that source 3 meets ORGIND. This only counts as one source per WP:N.
We have already been over the first source, which is arguably the strongest. Iridescent has explained the practice here, but I will go ahead and discuss Cunard's rebuttal: the context of someone's work as a freelancer depends on the specific publication and what they are doing there. She might be reputable as a whole, but decide as a freelancer that she wants to publish stories solely on small startups in the UK and go around asking them for press release information to quickly write articles so she can get paid. This is a normal practice in this field, because it is beneficial to all parties. Iridescent has already looked at the articles published for the Guardian , which makes this very likely. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the sources. For example Source 6, 4 & 5 is a journalistic article with a signed author published in a reliable source. Does it quote someone? Yes, but what journalistic piece doesn't? That's how journalism works. Even Wikipedia has quotes by people. When I think of an interview piece, it's where the entire conversation is pasted verbatim, unlike this piece that has original reportage and selected quotes integrated into the journalists writing. Any journalist worth their pay is going to interview someone from the company they are reporting about. For Publishers Weekly, I've never heard of that being excluded from AfD, as something "we normally do".. I've been doing AfD's for 8 years and never heard that before. Finally the idea that a piece is simply rehashing a press release is just an opinion without evidence. Sure that happens, but it doesn't mean it happened here, it can be proven if it can be shown the content is just a rehash of a press release and doesn't contain original reportage.. -- GreenC 17:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the original source of 4&5? Not the archive link but the actual source? They are blog posts. I disagree on everything else, but those can’t possibly be qualified as journalism by even the loosest standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "blog" doesn't always mean unreliable when it's part of a series like this. 4 is by Porter Anderson who is "a career journalist" and "Editor-in-Chief of Publishing Perspectives, a news magazine focused on the international book publishing scene and founded in 2009 by Frankfurt Book Fair New York". He seems pretty reliable. Molly Flatt is also a professional journalist and Associate Editor at The Memo and Digital Editor at PHOENIX magazine, which seems like a reliable writer also. That these leading professionals in the industry found the company notable enough to comment on seems, well, Notable. -- GreenC 17:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant the deletion advocates this much: some of the sources (e.g., the Telegraph) do appear to be lacking in independence due to excessive reliance on company personnel, ascertainable from the sources' own text. Also, the depth does leave something to be desired. But IMO it is over the threshold, and cannot be pushed below it without using the above-mentioned questionable claims to dismiss the remaining sources.
I was able to find only one source not already referenced here:
Conrad, Kathryn M. (2017). "Public libraries as publishers: critical opportunity". Journal of Electronic Publishing. 20 (1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0020.106. Archived from the original on 2017-11-27. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
This article refers to Reedsy as a source for information on the cost of various aspects of self-publishing (copyediting, proofreading, professional cover design). Not exactly an aside, since the information is used to support the author's main line of argument. Admittedly not much depth either. But IMO depth is already adequate from existing sources.
—Syrenka V (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About your comment "that company has not created any outstanding product" -- it's a service firm, not a consumer goods maker. Its service is connecting authors with vetted publishing freelancers (editors/ cover designers/ proofreaders etc) -- that's what it does -- and it plays an important role in the increasingly important Self-publishing market. Reedsy is one of the two big players (the other is Bibliocrunch). All firms seek publicity; that this firm succeeded in getting publicity in respectable publications indicates notability, not the opposite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are a self publishing firm - this means they are merely doing their job - self publishing on others reputable outlets. The refs are useless. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 27 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. MBisanz talk 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eeuwes[edit]

Robert Eeuwes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON - never played a game in a top-level professional league. PKT(alk) 18:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 18:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 18:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can still pass GNG. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If he could show a lot more sourcing than most other people at his level of play could also show, then maybe. But that's not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 25 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America1000 01:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working in layers[edit]

Working in layers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD reverted without improvement. Original research since 2006. A search today did not turn up authoritative sources, although I bet there must be some. The article fails WP:V unless it can be substantiated. Rhadow (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • walking by moving legs
  • breathing by inhaling
  • writing with words
  • chewing while eating 198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are missing something here. Fresco, watercolour, & most gouache/bodycolour/chalk dry within seconds to a couple of hours, and don't ever or at least usually work in layers, nor I think does tempera, so the concept was new at the start of oil painting. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it the opposite? "Working in layers" is the optical blending of a fast-drying medium, rather than being able to re-work paint in a still-workable state - even if the second is applied in layers, the layers don't necessarily remain in the finished work. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the article, and say this. But it is optical blending. Apparently you can do it in tempera though (says the article), but not in fresco. Note Wet-on-wet too. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you had ever painted, you would know that one almost never applies paint (or watercolour for that matter) in a single layer. There's really no "single layer" painting process other than paint by numbers.198.58.171.47 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And fresco for one, as I keep saying. If you're going to be a smartarse, at least get it right. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fresco? I looked that up on Wikipedia: "In painting buon fresco, a rough underlayer called the arriccio is added to the whole area to be painted and allowed to dry for some days." I'm not trying to be a smartass. I am simply pointing out the fact that all painting process except painting by numbers typically involve painting in successive layers to achieve a visual effect. Even painting your kitchen typically involves a primer and two coats of paint.. aka "painting in layers".198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how fresco works, that's not what "painting in layers" means. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - the arriccio is plain plaster, as is the next intonaco coat. Then the painting begins, and in "true fresco" has to be finished in a few hours for each area. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 26 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. SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buckskinning[edit]

Buckskinning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD reverted without improvement. Buckskinning is an important hobby for many to be sure. The article was original research in 2008. A search today turns up blogs and people trying to sell magazines, books, and gear, but I saw no reliable independent sources. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bucksnort, Tennessee[edit]

Bucksnort, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A PROD was reverted without improvement. This article, all original research, describes a town that does not exist. The I-40 exit sign is a curiosity, but the text that describes a "small unincorporated community" fails WP:V I have found no reliable references that describe this ghost town. Rhadow (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
plus places, big and small, from numerous other non-western countries....Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator after references found and added to article. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fire chief's vehicle[edit]

Fire chief's vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I just added 13 sources. Changing to Speedy K. It's, like, a keep.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:38, 24 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 Noori#Begum_Gul_Bakaoli_Sarfarosh_.282015.29. MBisanz talk 04:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aik Tha Badshah[edit]

Aik Tha Badshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Iffy★Chat -- 09:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto authors[edit]

Esperanto authors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a list of notable authors of Esperanto literature. However the vast majority of the article is a massive set of redlinks, highlight that perhaps these authors are not in fact notable. Most of it is unreferenced. Since there is already a category on Writers of Esperanto literature, that category should be enough. This list is not useful. Canterbury Tail talk 12:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:18, 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. MBisanz talk 04:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of Esperanto[edit]

Cyrillization of Esperanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a single reference (with a Cyrillization which differs from that in the article in case of h and ĥ), but hardly notable. Burzuchius (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:43, 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 merge to Ishqbaaaz. North America1000 02:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishqbaaaz (soundtrack)[edit]

Ishqbaaaz (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soundrack album for a marginally notable TV series. Fails general notability criteria, and every point of notability criteria for music (albums). —usernamekiran(talk) 10:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Update: I change my nominatio to "merge". The explanation has been provided below. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete my page. What I have to do now? - Siddiq Sazzad (Chat) 13:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: As noted on your talk page, it would have been helpful if you'd created a merge discussion at Talk:Ishqbaaaz instead of going through the AfD process. And frankly, it might have saved time all around if you'd boldly turned the soundtrack article into a redirect and reverted Siddiqsazzad001's content extraction at Ishqbaaaz, since he didn't discuss the changes beforehand. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on my talkpage. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:06, 9 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) 12:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JayB91: Respectfully, the above is a super-weak argument. "The soundtrack is notable enough". OK, so where is the significant coverage from independent sources that would support this? "...more sources can be found easily" Great, where? You're basically playing both sides of the argument, claiming that it's notable, providing no sources then suggesting that we wait for the notability to arrive down the road. That's not how we do stuff. If we have to wait for notability to arrive, then we obviously created the article too early. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This the "imdb cant used be as a reliable source", and "pokemon test" situation. Most of the sources available are the "film/tv media gossip" types sources. Few are even close to tabloids. It lacks core depth, and WP:SIGCOV as whole. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roop and Tom[edit]

Roop and Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find anything in reliable sources showing these radio hosts are notable Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:37, 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. Consensus is that it's too soon for this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIA Formula 3 International Championship[edit]

FIA Formula 3 International Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created WP:TOOSOON. While the formation of the championship has been announced, there are very few details available about the structure of the championship or regulations. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:35, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naim Edge[edit]

Naim Edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:35, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conrado Co[edit]

Conrado Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet WP:NBADMINTON #3 and #5.Stvbastian (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He meet #3 WP:NBADMINTON. Won the Taipei Open in the doubles event.Stvbastian (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:34, 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. Essentially, only one editor argued for keeping and nobody agreed with them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Harchick[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jonathan Harchick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upon rereading Joe's nomination request, I see that "reference bombing" is mentioned. That was not an intention and was completely accidental. When adding sources, it simply couldn't be decided which one was better so both were thrown in, which as a problem, wasn't considered. I'll see if I can pick out some notable sources.
Though I hope validity of sources isn't the main issue here. Because practically every article is indeed credible. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing to be considered; many of the references supplied were actually just used to prove certain chunks of information are true according to Harchick. For example, the fact that much of his YouTube accounts were deleted was detailed in a video of his. This specific citation was not provided to add to the credibility of the overall article but was simply provided to verify that individual statement. Other citations HAVE been provided to contribute to the overall article's credibility, though. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are proper uses of many supporting references. My wish is that people writing new articles would put the notability-attesting references in the first save. Then add further supporting references after. You put 26 references in on the first save. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". [2]
* The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
* The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
* The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements.
Alex, reference bombing is an unfortunate trend of all Wikipedia-spammers. It makes it very hard to review the notability-attesting sources. Notability should be demonstrated by a minimum or 2, no more than 3 sources. Independent, reliable (not amazon.com or youtube), secondary source (making commentary or analysis of the topic, and directly addressing the topic (the person Jonathan Harchick). Can you list these 2 or 3? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course reference bombing is unfortunate. I'd agree that it should be prevented. However I want to say that it was not intentional during this article's creation. And if it's any consolation, references can also be removed. For the sake of neutrality, did you attempt to find any notable sources, yourself?
Are the news outlets provided, like starring on The Today Show not be "credible"? I mean, I'd say they're certainly reliable and offer coverage on Harchick's notability quite nicely. Also, ABC News is a widely acclaimed news source, correct?
On the other hand, I'm aware that in the "filmography" section, many news outlets that Harchick's been featured on have not been cited in the article so perhaps I can uncover some. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were reliable sources, that is not significant coverage. It is light relief. They are featuring him for light relief, not covering him. As secondary sources, they are very very shallow. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (Counter)As stated numerous times, "getting attention for themselves" is not specified by the subject and is simply a rumor or estimate created by some of the media. No one can be sure the feats are simply for attention. It was even stated that the channels are hobbies done in the subjects spare time. "Utterly pointless and meaningless" are also heavily opinionated terms in which we try to avoid on Wikipedia. From a neutral point of view, it can be said that what the subject has done is indeed notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. Also stated numerous times, what would be your input on Jonathan Mann and his Wikipedia article? Are they not one in the same? And, sure, this is not a Guinness Book of World Records book, but notable tasks are indeed worth mentioning on the site. What are your thoughts on: List of people who have walked across the United States? Why do they receive an article? Sure the task takes a longer time to complete. Not only that, but a great amount of endurance. But proportions-of-achievement aside, large tasks that have "made a difference online"/"been a milestone online"/"been a notable event all around" are not only worth mentioning, but meet Wikipedia's criteria. Please refer to the bullets below.
Remember that notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative states:
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". [3]
* The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
* The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
* The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements.
Tasks completed by the subject have not only been 'Googled' countless times, but are also the first result to show up. It should be argued that his Wikipedia would be an efficient 'hub' for a recollection of all of his achievements for the ones who are truly interested.
-- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have struck through your duplicate !vote; you are more than welcome to comment as much as you wish, however you must only !vote (Keep / Delete in bold) once. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-truck-jb-hunt-trans/j-b-hunt-wal-mart-climb-aboard-teslas-electric-truck-idUSKBN1DH1GH
  2. ^ "New Creator Showcase Panel at Summer In The City". Ten Eighty Magazine. Retrieved November 12, 2017.
  3. ^ "New Creator Showcase Panel at Summer In The City". Ten Eighty Magazine. Retrieved November 12, 2017.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment Notability according to: WP:BIO and WP:Creative
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Very unique contributions of which none other has attempted. Additionally, Vsauce claims at a panel that content by Harchick "wouldn't be found anywhere else". [1]

References

  1. ^ "New Creator Showcase Panel at Summer In The City". Ten Eighty Magazine. Retrieved November 12, 2017.
* The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Harchick was the subject of a Tosh.0 episode.
* The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Longest video on YouTube and one of three to count to 100,000.
* The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Though not recent, Harchick has won two local awards due to contributions sponsored by well-known Robert Morris University. They were won around the time of Harchick's first nomination for deletion and perhaps these awards were why an article was proposed in the first place. But like I said, a lot has happend since the first nomination. And in all technicality, the fact that awards were won do meet the requirements. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand at this point the article will most likely be deleted, but it's such a shame that all the debaters seem to be ignoring my points. He does meet the criteria if you'll just take a look at the data I've supplied. In the above bullets, he does seem notable according to WP:BIO and WP:Creative. I can understand the admins' nit-pickiness regarding the sourcing, but notability shouldn't be an issue. For Pete Sake, Shane Dawson's wife has a Wikipedia account for some reason, even though she meets none of the guidelines and has done nothing notable. Harchick has accomplished feats many Wikipedia-article-owning celebrities have never amounted to. Shame.
But I can't argue against a team of admins. Go ahead and overlook the statements I've included. But in the future, when nominating articles, read each debate thoroughly. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 05:00, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson (disambiguation)[edit]

Emma Watson (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the entries listed have articles. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They don't need to have articles, although one of them does, Let There Be Sunshine. They need to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, see MOS:DABMENTION. The disambiguation page then gives information to the reader on all Emma Watsons we have information on. Nothing to be gained from deletion either. Dabs are cheap and this has 4 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with DABMENTION but, except the primary topic, all other 3 entries are non-notable and unlikely to be searched:
  1. Emma, the novel character is not mentioned in Tess Gerritsen as per DABMENTION, neither do the novel have an article.
  2. I doubt how likely is that to search for a character in an unfinished novel.
  3. Emma in sitcom The Andy Griffith Show is only a recurring character that appeared in just 6 in a total of 249 episodes.
Dabs are for articles sharing same title or sometimes notable non-existing titles that are likely to be searched. I don't see that necessity here. Otherwise, as you said if we are adding all names we have information on, then every BLP here will need a dab since names are always shared. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let There Be Sunshine, have you looked at MOS:DABMENTION? The criterion for an entry is: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. Nothing about notability and all the entries clearly meet it except the 2nd, which, as you say, no longer has any mention of Emma Watson (although it did when the entry was added). With that deleted, 3 valid entries remain. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've jsut added a 5th entry, which meets MOS:DABMENTION too. Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about notability - Well, that is a COMMONSENSE. --Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for inclusion within an article (and hence for a mention in a dab page) is lower than notability: see WP:NOTEWORTHY. – Uanfala 10:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I mentioned common sense. If notability is not considered, then every BLP here will have a dab with at least two 2 entries. I don't think any of these entries in EW are likely to be search.--Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:14, 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 redirect to Monster.com#History.  Sandstein  09:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JOBTRAK[edit]

JOBTRAK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:44, 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 as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure)  FITINDIA  18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Techvaganza[edit]

Techvaganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local college event with very little substantially sourced claim for notability, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG, only very minor mentions in secondary sources. Muhandes (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 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.  Sandstein  09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail (Pakistan)[edit]

Daily Mail (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is merely a news website not a proper as the website or this article claims. the only source cited is a press release taken from the website of this newspaper. Saqib (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:48, 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. I did not notice that this is a WP:A9 case.  Sandstein  07:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderland (Bandari album)[edit]

Wonderland (Bandari album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album by nonnotable band, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandari (AVC).  Sandstein  07:39, 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.  Sandstein  09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan de Bruycker[edit]

Dylan de Bruycker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. FilFootyGuy (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines Football League is not a Fully professional league per WP:FPL as required by NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 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.  Sandstein  09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Ali Haider[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Best of Ali Haider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect for searching purpose. Störm (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:02, 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.  Sandstein  09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan[edit]

Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in WP:RS. Vanity organization. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 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. How this lasted this long I have no idea, but this is a pretty obvious job for G11man. Up, up, and delete! The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SXMJobs.com[edit]

SXMJobs.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:41, 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 delete. WP:SNOW; made up by problematic editor. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunthagon[edit]

Hunthagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. There are no references included in the article and a WP:BEFORE search did not provide reliable sources to prove the subject notable. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 06:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 06:37, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Heights High School[edit]

Sterling Heights High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am both the creator of this article and a graduate of the school. I actually graduated in the same class as the current principal, and had multiple classes with him while in high school (at least two, and possible more). I was on the school's quiz bowl team, the last year that the first quiz bowl coach was coaching, and know that one time the Macomb Daily ran an article showcasing ethnic and religious diversity in Macomb County by mentioning that Sterling Heights High School had Mormon and Messianic Jewish students. I was among the 5 Mormons at the time, and I could name at least one of the Messianic Jews. However after having read the debate on the notability of schools that ran at RfC recently, I have become convinced that high schools are not default notable. When the High School Website (that I helped create a former iteration of) and the school district website are the only sources listed, it is hard to see this as much more than a directory. My search for additional sources didnt show up much more than sports coverage, and the occasional story about criminal violence done or threatened by a student. I am sure if the Macomb Daily's archives were more easily searchable I would have come across a student of the week article or two about the school. OK, the 2017 prom in photos was published by the Macomb Daily. Well, OK, here [13] is an article from earlier this year about Sterling Heights High School being one of 54 in Michigan recognized as an academic state champ. This is in a state with about 500 school districts, each one required to have at least one high school. I work for Detroit Public Schools Community District, which has 21 high schools, admitedly the most in the state, but by no means the only case of a multi high school district. This is without counting all the charter and private high schools in Michigan, or the many defunct high schools in the state. I have to admit it does not help that I have seen many high school articles abused as magnets for blatant vandalism, but at least in the balance of the American education system, it has traditionally been colleges and universities where academic policy is derived from, not high schools. I don't think Sterling Heights High School, or lots of other high schools in the US for that matter, pass notability guidelines. My deep connections make this probably an easy article to start with, but I have a suspicion that lots and lots of high schools we have articles on do not pass notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 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.  Sandstein  09:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mica Mosbacher[edit]

Mica Mosbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Seems to be written as an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from her famous husband. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 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 05:18, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Emmons Chapin[edit]

Frederick Emmons Chapin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finishing nomination by IP 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031, whose rationale is detailed here. ansh666 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 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 keep.  Sandstein  09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Fitnam[edit]

Thomas H. Fitnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finishing nomination by IP 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031, whose rationale is detailed here. ansh666 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Curtis Mayflower[edit]

The Curtis Mayflower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, nothing much past indiscriminate local puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:59, 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 List of programs broadcast by Cooking Channel.  Sandstein  08:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Goddess[edit]

Spice Goddess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a television cooking show, which just states that the show existed and sources the fact exclusively to its own (deadlinked) primary source website and a (deadlinked) episode list on a TV Guide knockoff. It's the ability to reliably source the article to media coverage, not an automatic inclusion freebie for every show that existed at all, that governs whether a show gets over WP:TVSHOW or not -- but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 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 Nadia G. North America1000 02:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia G's Bitchin' Kitchen[edit]

Nadia G's Bitchin' Kitchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a television cooking show, referenced entirely to IMDb and primary sources (its dead profile on the website of the channel that used to carry it and the host's own self-published foodblog) with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, every television show does not get an automatic free pass over WP:TVSHOW just because it can be nominally verified as existing -- it needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to qualify for an article, but there's none here. Bearcat (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 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.  Sandstein  08:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Judge Gallery[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Johnny Judge Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The Gallery was short lived and beyond a few press notices around the time of its launch there are no further references online and no way of developing the article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:50, 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.  Sandstein  08:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khan (singer)[edit]

Rashid Khan (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Subject does not appear to meet GNG or guidelines for musicians

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Staehli[edit]

Nina Staehli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NARTIST. Despite 34 references, I see very little substantial coverage apart, perhaps, from one article on swissart.ch.

The article has been created and maintained by the subject [23] and appears to serve no other purpose than self-promotion. Rentier (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 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; G5 (creation by banned or blocked user), plus no reliable sources.

Jack Maynard[edit]

Jack Maynard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no reliable sources found. YouTube is not a additional sources. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:14, 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. Note to contributors to this discussion: CSD#A7 does not apply to songs (or singles). Michig (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dokkyûn☆Heart[edit]

Dokkyûn☆Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a song by an artist who already has an article fails WP:NSONG, and there's no sources actually covering it, as shown here. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 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.
More