The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realtor University[edit]

Realtor University (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 promotional organization that calls itself a "university" despite no accreditation. Flagged for notability for two and a half years. All sources are from the "university" itself; no coverage in third-party independent sources.

It appears to have been created by a COI editor on behalf of the subject of the article; note that the original article title includes the “®” symbol, and only the National Association of Realtors does that.

It’s currently under a proposal to merge to National Association of Realtors, but the reality is that the “university” is non-notable, and deletion is more appropriate. It rates at most one line in the NAR article. TJRC (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a professional association's training program and of no special significance, and this primary-sourced article is indistinguishable from an advertisement. At MOST, one line in the NAR article, and, frankly, what there is about training in the NAR article should be cut back. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hamburger University has more academic significance. This is basically just a whole bunch of seminars and training sessions; most large companies have something like this. On another note, I could have sworn I pruned something Realtor-related a few months back because of major WP:PROMO concerns (it was Realtor.com), but the NAR article needs major help itself. I feel like we have major WP:COIs with Realtor-related articles that need addressing. Nate • (chatter) 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It will likely gain notability from a class action lawsuit, but this is too early. Fails WP:GNG, a clear case of WP:PROMO. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails PROMO, GNG and COI. I'm fine with the one-line merge per TJRC, but what's there now should be deleted. South Nashua (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like others have said, it fails WP:GNG and WP:COI. I'm not as concerned about WP:PROMO as some others above are, but I think the the best course of action would be to merge a condensed one- or two-liner into National Association of Realtors. cnzx (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable training organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable organization that lacks independent reportage. Complete reliance on primary sources smacks of advocacy. Besides creating this article the only other edit of the SPA is this linking, so as to integrate his advocacy article. This article doesn't need any merge as it was created in blatant violation of our core policies WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:RS and WP:PROMO. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:07, 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. Looks like unanimous consensus to delete the two pages in the original nomination. A bunch of additional pages were mentioned during the course of the discussion; please bring them to a new AfD if desired. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3[edit]

List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 (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)

Original research, and a violation of WP:NOT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

List of PlayStation games compatible with PlayStation 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Unlike the current approach that Sony does, where they have brought selected PS1/PS2/PS3 games forwards to the PS4 through emulation, the original PS3 was to have "generic" PS1 and PS2 compatibility - no extra software required. Yes, some games did not work well or at all, but that's where the original research from the nom comes in - there's no reliable sources for this information. We already summarize this generic compatibility elsewhere, so the lists aren't needed. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I brought this up to the WikiProject months back and people generally agreed with my concerns, but we never got around to taking action. Sourcing for these 2 lists simply don't exist. Unlike most "List of video games for X platform", where websites report every time a game is announced, both of these lists are scenarios where the company just said "most games are compatible" at once, and then the exceptions and limitations were documented by editors themselves - WP:OR of course. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both WP:OR for sure, and further more, the topic for these two lists seems not to meet WP:N. There is no real reason that anyone would need to know what PlayStation 1 and or 2 games are compatible with the ps3 for research purposes, this just seems like a page to answer the question of "is my copy of __for the ps1 or ps2 playable on my ps3?". Wikipedia is not an answers site and this list is certainly not encyclopedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapefruit17 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should these similar lists be also nominated for deletion for the same reasons exposed by Grapefruit17?

• List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360
• List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox One
• List of Xbox games with alternate display modes
• List of backward compatible games for Xbox One--200.78.194.72 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1st, 2nd, and 4th are fine - they are not OR - there are a purposely limited number of games, controlled by MS, that are compatible, and those games are frequently recognized in third-party sources. I'm not sure on the 3rd one but that should be a separate from AFD. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about these?

• List of PlayStation 2 games with alternate display modes
• List of GameCube games with alternate display modes--200.78.194.72 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe any of these "alternate display modes" articles should be deleted as well, per WP:NOTMANUAL and my original !vote above. The sourcing is terrible and simply doesn't exist, so it's not a matter of cleanup... Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Masem: List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 is WP:OR for everything except the list of games Microsoft has released. There is no sources for 50Hz PAL, 60Hz PAL, Widescreen and the list of issues with the emulated games on the list. Most of the issues noted on List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 and List of PlayStation games compatible with PlayStation 3 were copied directly from Sony's website when they maintained a database detailing 90% of emulation issues for the CECHA/B & CECHC/E models. There are some games that have their issues sourced via alternate means. So for the PS3 related articles the lists should be condensed down to just games with known & sourced issues. Its not fair to leave List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 untouched while discussing the removal of List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 because of WP:OR ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between the "PS1/PS2 playable on PS3" and these other lists, fundamentally, is that the former ones are just lists of all PS1 and PS2 games, with a few noted compatibility exceptions, simply because the feature was highly generic. That's indiscriminate information. The "Xbox 360 on Xbox One" list and the others, for example, require that some groups spend actual time and effort to get it to work for each game (it's not plug-and-pray (sic) as it was for PS1/PS2 on PS3), so there is a substantially limited set. And thus when a new set of backwards compatibility games emerges, it gets noticed and fanfare from external sources, so compiling the limited list makes sense. Now, I do fully agree some of the data columns are indiscriminate info ( 50/60 Hz PAL, for example) and should be removed, but the list of such games as a whole in these cases is fine since this is routinely tracked by sources. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you because of the nature of backwards compatibility on the PS3 there shouldn't be lists detailing every PS2 and PS1 game playable on PS3. However, these lists are nominated on the grounds of WP:OR and that is what is being discussed. My point is the PS1/PS2 games that have issues being played on a PS3 system came from Sony themselves when they maintained a database about every game on their website which is long gone now. Microsoft never listed how an Xbox title played differently on Xbox 360 they just had a general disclaimer. I'm saying that if the result comes down to these two articles in question being completely deleted then List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 needs to be stripped of all unsourced content and needs to look more like List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox One because it has a similar problem of WP:OR that the two PlayStation articles up for deletion have. Now I would support a merge of the two and listing just the PS1 & PS2 games that have backwards compatibility issues with the PS3 if sources can be found and looks like one editor has been trying to find sources for some. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox One is exemplary here, effectively just stating "it exists" and any notes (eg like the one case of a game also in the Rare Replay collection). Any further tech specs on these lists are likely wholly unnecessary - but that doesn't meant they should be deleted. But something like List of Xbox games with alternate display modes is both indiscriminate information (it's too "techie" for WP) and principally unsourced. --MASEM (t) 06:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused my main point was the "Notes" column List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 which is breaking down the glitches when running Xbox software on Xbox 360 hardware. There are some games on List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3 & List of PlayStation games compatible with PlayStation 3 that have these notes as well. If those are the items you are referring to as keeping then wouldn't a simple cleanup and merge of the two PlayStation articles with only the games that have those note suffice? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting glitches or partial incompatibilities or video modes is original research and would require a viable source, and my experience is that this type of information is not documented in RSes. Notes about the availability of a game in a different format for the same platform despite also being on a backwards-compat list is far from that type of original research, that's "obvious" information so not a problem. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while I would support deletion of all the pages suggested by the IP editor, I'm not planning to add them to this nomination. I'd recommend one bulk AfD for all the "alternate display modes" pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and also agree with power~enwiki, most of these lists are more shopping and technical guides than anything encyclopedic. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:37, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grahams Hi-Fi[edit]

Grahams Hi-Fi (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 store, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with your justification for deletion, but the primary contributor to the page is also arguably a WP:SPA. cnzx (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A single nn shop. Szzuk (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. As an aside, the creator's other articles are also of questionable notability and possibly should be nominated for deletion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hrodvarsson - Done here and here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InnovaCare Health[edit]

InnovaCare Health (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)

Spam by an editor who has declared that they were paid to create this article. It fails both points of WP:N: the coverage in the article and seen in a BEFORE search is your typical press release churn or trivial coverage that is excluded by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND as counting towards the general and it is obvious promotion that is excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. As such, we have no choice but to delete it from Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you both for your input. I have edited the page and would ask for your reconsideration. I don't think it's fair to punish someone for disclosing interests per WP:PAID, and I must disagree with your notability assessment. The company's founder is a well-known entrepreneur and philanthropist. Furthermore, the company's presence as one of the largest healthcare companies in Puerto Rico is especially newsworthy today. I've tried to make this clearer on the page. Thank you again.Bama371084 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bama371084 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure of paid editing is not an exemption from local policies and guidelines. It is the bare minimum required to hit the save button. Promotional editing is always disallowed, regardless of disclosure status per WP:NOTSPAM, the local policy governing promotional articles and editing on the English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. Have you checked the latest version of the page? I would be curious to know what specifically you consider promotional. Bama371084 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as nothing substantial about the workings of the company can be gleaned from the cited sources. I also lean towards WP:MILL, as nothing indicates to me why this company is individually notable when compared to similar companies. Per nom, this article seems to be promotional and would likely not exist if an editor had not been paid to create it. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The first reference is also misleading as it makes it look like the company was talked about in a major publication when it fact in only mentions a company that the apparent founders were previously involved with. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:36, 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 Speedy keep. No argument advanced for deletion. Michig (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bows_(band)[edit]

Bows_(band) (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)

(({text))} Geejayen (talk) 21:14, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hershel Jick[edit]

Hershel Jick (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 professor is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT, which is a paper he co-authored in the 1980s, already covered by it's own article. Natureium (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Citation counts on Google scholar: 1029 (for the "addiction rare" paper) but then 828, 805, 782, 777, 598... for an h-index somewhere around a stunning 95. That's a very easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and very far from being notable only for one paper. The nomination statement mistakes being known for something (he is known for that paper, certainly) with being known only for it, not true in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1. Bizarre nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 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 redirect to Baccara. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woman to Woman (Baccara album)[edit]

Woman to Woman (Baccara 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)

I could not find any secondary sources that could equate to passing WP:GNG. Discogs, a user-generated source, is certainly not a quality source. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative suggestion to merge with Baccara. Vorbee (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Baccara, although I wouldn't be against an outright delete, as there are so many albums called Woman to Woman this would be a tricky search term. Absolutely non-notable album that fails WP:ALBUM completely. Richard3120 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Baccara, no need to delete. Content should be merged with the original article. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:05, 23 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 the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Levin[edit]

Michal Levin (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)

All sources in this article are primary sources. Searches for significant independent coverage come up empty. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No proof of notability found. gidonb (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the material I have made the following edits and have included the following independent sources:

• Gary Baumgarten interview for Newstalk online 2007
• Kindred Spirit Magazine article 2015
• Telegraph Newspaper article 2002

NB the three books cited, written by Levin, are published by independent and established publishing houses - Hodder & Stoughton, Dorling Kindersley and Gill & McMillan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephineH1 (talk • contribs) — JosephineH1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For scanned copy of Hilary Pearson's Nov/Dec 2014 Kindred Spirit Article (no longer available online) email info@michallevininstitute.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephineH1 (talk • contribs)

• Comment @JosephineH1: Interviews given by the subject and articles written by the subject are not considered independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable meditation promoter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:02, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sluizer Speaks[edit]

Sluizer Speaks (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 film fails WP:NFP. have no references, fails WP:NFSOURCES, not featured anywhere, no major award, fails WP:NFO. Prod removed by author who made very few contribs apart from the article. After he removed prod the only sources he relied upon are user generated IMDb and YouTube trailer. I can't find any source that even mention this film in full sentence.  — Ammarpad (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important festival information and links to heir websites have been added. Information of and a link to an interview by the dutch film institute have been added. Production-information on the odd circumstances of this film have been added. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the festival is a general film festival where the film was also mentioned like any other films there both notable and non notable. Their website that you added is further evidence no independent source that reported about this film. And for WP:GNG to be met independent and of course, reliable sources are necessary. The reference section is still empty, while you are busy populating external link section. None of the points of WP:NFILM is also met.  — Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In looking for coverage, the best I could manage was this article which I would not categorize as substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:35, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jalil (badminton)[edit]

Abdul Jalil (badminton) (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. Was nominated for deletion earlier this year but the points made in the discussion are false. #5 in WP:NBADMINTON states "Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics." Afghanistan has never competed in the sport at the Olympics. There is also a lack of GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is a failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple national champion, major person in Afghanistan badminton. Florentyna (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what? @Florentyna. The article fails WP:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG, both policies which are used to determine if a subject is notable. In this case failing both most likely indicates the subject is not-notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The requirement that someone can only be notable in a sport if their country regularly sends people to the olympics is a great example of systemic bias, not only privileging the Olympics as though it was an independent objective measure, but also privileging countries who are wealthy enough to send multiple competitors there.Egaoblai (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Egaoblai The reason why the article was saved last time was because it was erroneously pointed out that it met point #5 of WP:NBADMINTON (it doesn't). It fails all other parts of WP:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG, so there really isn't any grounds to keeping the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sportsfan 1234 And I'm pointing out why this is a failure of WP to address systemic bias. Here we have a multiple national champion who is being called non notable because his country doesn't send people to the olympics, an utterly bizarre rationale for exclusion on an encyclopedia that purports to be for quality. As I pointed out this is systemic bias against poorer countries and also discriminatory against badminton, as it makes the inclusion of a badminton article subject to the whims of the olympic committees in the country. What you are advocating for is a system of inclusion where the sources and the facts remain the same, but we must wait for a group of people sitting in a room with a budget list in order to add this to the encylopedia, despite the article already being created. A very strange situation indeed. I'm more interested in adding quality, sourced information to the encylopedia than rigidly following rules that uphold bias. Egaoblai (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are terrible, not to mention the article quality is atrocious. Does not meet notability. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both NBadminton, and GNG. There is no systemic bias as opined earlier, the standards that have been set are designed to limit athletes passing who are expected to pass GNG. It is not an issue of what is fair, but what we expect there to be coverage of. If editors wish to make a case for a bias, or inclusion, they need to provide valid sources that meet GNG. Or present why those currently passing the sport specific quideline should not pass.18abruce (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Looks like the page creator is the subject in question. I am honestly surprised this article has 'survived' this long. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If true, this should be reported as COI. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NBADMINTON, WP:GNG - Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Moreover I found insufficient neutral reliable sources, and as such it fails WP:GNG. Argument by Egaoblai above does not work. WP:NBADMINTON gives reasons for exceptions to WP:GNG, cases in which an article most likely will meet WP:GNG and it is nt needed to investigate. However any article that fails WP:NBADMINTON can still meet WP:GNG. Any article that can pass WP:GNG can stay. As such a subject does not need to be from a country with any reference to the olympics, and there is no bias. The article at hand however does not meet WP:GNG. As such it should be deleted. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:31, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Extras[edit]

Holiday Extras (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)

fundamentally promotional article, but editor who admits he is writing this at company request- though not for pay DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I respect the author's motivations, but a personal website or detailed blog would be a better place for this text.TH1980 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User talk:TH1980

Thank you for your contribution to this debate.

The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is that the subject matter must be notable and that the facts given must be verifiable. I hope I have demonstrated below that the Holiday Extras' entry satisfies that criteria. Like it or not the modern world recognises the commercial entity and although such an article may not have appeared in the 18th century editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica, a contemporay equivalent would be bereft if it did not include such a catagory. Indeed Wikipedia does embrace this as can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_companies?oldformat=true. I totally accept what Wikipedia is trying and indeed is achieving and I recognise the importance of notability and verifiability. I look forward to this logic being employed when a decision is made about this entry.

Thank you.

Davidcowell42 (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As the author of the Holiday Entry page I would like to address DGG's concerns about the entry and will do so over the next 48 hours.

Thank you.

David Davidcowell42 (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As the author of the Holiday Entry page I would like to address DGG's concerns about the entry and his belief that it does not comply with Wikipedia’s criteria.

1. Notability:

The probability of a start up company, without the support of a large funding group, failing is very high with estimates of a survival rate as low as 10% being possible <ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilpatel/2015/01/16/90-of-startups-will-fail-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-10/#1a5097496679<ref>. There are a tad under 7000 businesses employing more than 250 people in the UK <ref>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/467443/bpe_2015_statistical_release.pdf<ref>. For Holiday Extras to not only have survived but also thrived I would suggest is notable particularly as they appear in the Sunday Times top performing companies in various categories <ref>http://appointments.thesundaytimes.co.uk/article/best100companies/<ref>. In the best companies category they appear at number 47 which places them well within the top 1% of the business community.

The page statistics show since its creation, modest but consistent visitor numbers and it is quite possible that a lecturer/teacher uses the page as an integrated part of a business studies lesson so although registered as one visit it is possible that 20 plus viewed it.

Holiday Extras has recently purchased an IT booking company called Chauntry <ref>http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/holiday-extras-hythe-secures-takeover-airport-car-parking-booking-systems-provider-chauntry-135218/<ref> who operate globally and Purple Parking at Heathrow Airport <ref>https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/4839166/london-city-airport-heathrow-purple-parking/<ref>. Both these acquisitions were reported by third party publications.

2. Verifiability:

Following the appreciated advice of your editing peers I am satisfied that every statement made is verified by an independent third party and if I am mistaken about this I would like you to draw any you consider not being so to my attention so I can respond accordingly and address the issue if necessary. Thank you.

3. My role:

As disclosed, I was a director of Holiday Extras until 2006 and during that time I gave lectures to sixth form and college students on the genesis of the company and it was recognized as a welcomed part of their business studies curriculum. In my disclosure statement I showed the agenda for such an attended event. At the age of 70 I no longer give these lectures and have made the information available on-line via Wikipedia so it can be used as part of lessons.

Davidcowell42 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the comments by the author don't change the fact that it still fails to pass WP:CORPDEPTH ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor I have given a full explanation as to why I believe the entry complies whereas others have made generalisations eg “it fails to pass” and “web/blog would be a better place”. I believe unless they can provide concrete evidence that it isn’t notable with third party validation then the AfD should be removed.

Davidcowell42 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam. Promotional article from the outset. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence of your allegations please.

Davidcowell42 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With my respect's to the author and his above reasoning, I don't think the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH nor WP:AUD. The only references I could find mentioned the company in passing. Company A bought Company B. Or Company A sells travel. Even then, those sources were not good sources (primary or advertisements). WP:AUD states a business entity should have at least one regional, non-limited interest article provided towards notability. The author went to some great length above to prove notability, but the strongest argument presented was basically: most companies fail. Sadly, this does not address nor meet the requirements of WP:GNG for any item on WP. An analogy of the author's justification would be similar to Operator873 managed to survive birth, grew to age, married, and had children; Therefore, Operator873 is notable. However, I fail notability tests... as does this article. @Davidcowell42: Mr. Cowell, thank you for the time and effort you've spent on Wikipedia so far. Your contributions are appreciated, despite this referendum. I'd strongly encourage you to seek out articles that pique your curiosity or fancy that you may not have a conflict of interest or close attachment to. I also welcome any questions you may have and am willing to help guide your future endeavors. Best wishes. Operator873^CONNECT 01:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Operator873

Thank you for taking the time to contribute in such a reasoned manner and it is much appreciated albeit I do not agree with your reasoning. Please allow me 48 hours to familiarise myself with the requirement sources you quote and also try to understand why the Sunday Times, a national United Kingdom newspaper of some repute, Travel Weekly, a United Kingdom national trade publication and Kent Messenger , a county publication, all written by independent journalists and proffered as evidence of notability, doesn't satisfy that "a business entity should have at least one regional, non-limited interest article provided towards notability"? Thank you.

User:davidcowell42

Davidcowell42 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:45, 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. The weight of argument appears to support deletion. The sole keep vote was responded to with respect to in depth referencing and did not reply in turn. Two relists is enough. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Toon[edit]

Persian Toon (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 and (now) closed media channel. Only source is Facebook and self website. Previous AfD relisted 3 times attended by 2 real editors and closed as no consensus. Since then it remained permanent stub and now the channel no longer exist, no more anything to get about it  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  There are references in the edit history [1].  WP:BEFORE D1 for Google news indicates a possible source from digizone.cz dated 15 Sep 2016, and one from yjc.ir dated 14 Dec 2016.  That is without a Persian language search.  Notability is not temporary, WP:NTEMP, so being out of business means nothing.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Unscintillating: These two sources of Launching the channel cannot establish notability as per as we defer our reasons to WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage" and WP:BCAST which requires "significant coverage" and having broad regional or national audience. (That's for the channels that even still exists). Before I filed this AfD I had gone through these sources all of of them. Let us see their contents. 1. The first source in Czech gave story of "launching" with headline "Persian Toon - a new children's channel on 13E". The second source in Russian gave news more on the satellite 'Hot Bird 13E' than on the subject of this article with the headline. "On the Hot Bird 13A will soon be a channel for children Farsi". The 3rd and last source is the channels' website which is no longer working like it's owners. Further information, this channel existed for only 3 years 2012–2015 and then folded. The Parsi version of the article is a shadow of this one because it is completely unsourced and permanent stub too.  — Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: I can't find any reliable news from "yjc.ir" and "digizone.cz" in 2016 as you said, please help us with their contents, I am ready to change my mind once it is obvious this short-lived, defunct channel passes WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. Also there are no Parsi sources with anything more than that news of launching, the Parsi version of the article linked above already testify to that.  — Ammarpad (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable TV channel with no sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:GNG. Coverage is routine / WP:SPIP / passing mentions. Such channels are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 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. The weight of evidence cited by the Keep votes seems sufficient to ring the WP:N bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Pacifico[edit]

Albert Pacifico (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 Rathfelder (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to having his name actually mentioned out of all the heart docs in the nation, he has written papers which are cited hundreds of time on Google Scholar. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't mention them. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't have too. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any information on google about him having done anything significant enough for an article. Natureium (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a suitable reason for deletion. Whether you can't find any information is irrelevant, and it's clear that others have.Egaoblai (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one source is a press release and the other a minor news item in a local paper, not the things notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm sure JPL already knows this so I won't ping him, but Natureium and nom, may I quote WP:NEXIST?

  The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.

L3X1 (distænt write) 02:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to there not being sources in the article, not there not being sources online to establish notability. There are thousands of professors that have published articles indexed on google scholar. Not all of them are notable. Natureium (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Overall he has been a joint or principal author of 17papers each of which have been cited over 100 times. according to Google Scholar. Thisis sufficient to show him an authority in his subject according to WP:PROF. We usually figure that even in the well cited field of biomedicine, anyone with even 2 papers cited more than 100 times meets the requirements.The article is obviously incomplete. I can not account for how an article so radically inadequate came to be written, but there is enough information to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- per Worldcat identities, he's the co-author of two books, Reoperations in cardiac surgery and Angiocardiography in congenital heart malformations, which are somewhat widely held for such a specialty subject, by 89 and 88 libraries: [2]. Appears to be an authority in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only arguments for deletion (one from the OP and one vote) are based on the article being unsourced. That is no longer the case. While there may be a valid argument for redirecting or merging this, that can be had on the article talk page. For now I am not seeing a compelling argument for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aryk[edit]

Aryk (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 doesn't cite any sources, has been abandoned for a long time and isn't really needed ReeceTheHawk (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A perfectly valid stub. Sources for expansion can be found in the other language versions of this page, and we have no deadline. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aqueduct (water supply). I was able to find some sources - e.g. [3] [4] - but all they basically say is that these are small to medium sized aqueducts or irrigation ditches/canals in central Asia - so basically this is an alternative name for aqueduct. Other wikis are similarly stubby with the exception of ru.wiki (which names 3 sources) that covers irrigation in central Asia a bit more than here (but still relatively short). Aryk being a local name of the same global thing, having a separate stubby article doesn't make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but I am trying to find the right target. Both irrigation and surface irrigation are currently too general. Target currently suggested is not ideal: its ancient section deals with the subject by country, not by method. We could do with a general Ancient irrigation systems article providing an overview of this; qanat; levada and a few more. This is a list in Aqueduct, but that is a only dab-page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Acequia, an article about this same concept, using the name derived from Spanish. Such irrigation features are common around the world, and have different names in different languages, but the Turkish variety described in this article appears no different than the concept described at acequia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think it's obvious that these aren't quite coterminous with aqueduct. ru:Арык describes them as somewhere between aqueducts, irrigation channels, and a drainage ditch, and also mentions that they have independent history going back 3000 years. Its sources include two notable encyclopaedias (ESBE and UzSE) in which aryks have a separate entry (as does ruwiki, see ru:Акведук). I therefore don't think aqueduct is a good merge target at all. And while I do see the point in reducing the profusion of articles on this topic, we also have acequia, qanat, levada, leat, ditch, rill, flume, rhyne, nullah, and Kunstgraben—all covering similar technologies in different cultures—so I can't see why aryk should be singled out for merging, or why acequia, which exclusively covers Spanish and North American examples, would be a good redirect target. – Joe (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You might be thinking of Roman aqueduct when imagining Aqueduct (water supply) - however an aqueduct is any man made structure, just about, that conveys water - including channels and ditches.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I think my point about there being many distinct, culturally-specific technologies under the umbrella of "aqueducts", and it not necessarily being a good idea to merge them all, stands. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me from what I saw in the sources, that Aryk covers a whole range of small to medium sized aqueduct types - I'm not sure these have a cultural commonality (separate from other regions) other than being the regional term.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Aqueduct (water supply), which has a section on ancient aqueducts as Peterkingiron describes. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid stub article.Egaoblai (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — There are no sources in the article. I am not concerned about notability or anything but that this may actually be false information. There are not enough reliable sources to determine that the word "aryk" is indeed an English word that describes some sort of aqueduct. This leads me to believe that it is simply a transliteration of the word from Russian or some other language. Cannot be an article if there are not enough articles to prove that it is actually a thing! NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikolaiho: It is a transliteration of a word in Russian and numerous Turkic languages. Why would that be a problem? I have mentioned several sources above, and deletion discussions should be based on the existence of sources not the current state of citation, but for clarity I have just added them to article. – Joe (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe, a transliterated word should not have an article unless it is an accepted word in the English language or is a very well known word, ie. it has a definition in an English dictionary or is very popular (such as Bonjour). The citations don't ascertain the fact that it is an English word. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikolaiho: That's not true. We are a global encyclopaedia that happens to be written in the English language, not an encyclopaedia exclusively of the English language. Articles can be based on sources in any language. – Joe (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe no thats not the point. Wikipedia is not going to have the translation of every word in all the languages, even if that word has a million sources in that language. For example, why doesn't Wikipedia have the Igbo word for the word Aqueduct? Because it doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. And there are no sources showing that this word is notable in English. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is not a dictionary. But that has nothing to do with language and this article is not a dictionary definition nor a translation of aqueduct. There are sources (in Russian and Uzbek) that show that the concept is notable. It doesn't have to be notable in English. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- a valid stub, with sufficient sources to sustain it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources do not have to be inline and in English. Improvement, not deletion, is the key here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 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 no consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrous (film)[edit]

Ferrous (film) (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 film fails WP:NFILM XFhumu^Talk 10:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFF ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okopipi (software tool)[edit]

Okopipi (software tool) (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 dead web project. I almost ((db-web)) deleted it before noticing that it had survived AFD. This has no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources: the first AFD's sources are dead, published by entities without a solid reputation for reliability, or the latest news on the site and thus not secondary. (Note that the site's been dead for some years; "latest news" as of when they were published). Essentially the same is true of the sources currently in the article (there's a bit of overlap), and a Google search (which should reveal everything in existence for this recent Web topic) found only the articles that I'd already found on-wiki and a book that mentions the topic in passing. Please note that the first AFD mixed "Here are some good sources" (which aren't) and "It's useful" or "I like it", and the second and third AFDs combined "Keep for the reasons given in the first nomination" with more outright bad reasons; nobody's shown that this has attracted solid coverage from reliable publishers. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. None of the arguments in the previous AfDs are relevant; the first one had comments like this shouldn't be considered a promotional page since it is just an open-source project and the next two were largely "this already passed an AfD". This is a bunch of well-marketed vaporware from years ago. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable software that fails all requirements of WP:GNG for lack of significant independent coverage. Apart from agreeing with this well written nom statement I also agreed with power~enwiki after I read all the previous AfDs. The second and third AfD largely resulted in keep not because of policy or guidelines-based reason but because of the faulty argument that since it passed AfD before the it should be speedily kept  — Ammarpad (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Dbsseven (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The SecurityFocus, TechTarget, VNU and CNET articles cited as sources are all dated May 2006, which makes this a classic example of a topic that was a mere short-term interest only. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tân Thành District, Đồng Tháp[edit]

Tân Thành District, Đồng Tháp (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 sources have been provided showing that this district actually exists. There is a township called Tân Thành in Lai Vung District of the same province as well as townships Tân Thành A and Tân Thành B in Tân Hồng District which is also in Đồng Tháp Province; but I can't find any source online that suggests that any of these have been made into a new district. The only source cited by the article is the list of districts on Statoids that includes Tân Thạnh District, Long An Province and Tân Thành District, Bà Rịa - Vũng Tàu, but no Tân Thành District in Đồng Tháp Province. The "corresponding article" linked to on the Vietnamese Wikipedia is about the one in Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu Province and I couldn't find any article on the Vietnamese Wikipedia about a Tân Thành District in Đồng Tháp Province or mentioning the existence of such a district. The content of the article has been copied from Lai Vung District and Tân Thành (township). Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:V per nom.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A source has been added but I don't bleive it passes WP:RS and it is insufficient in any event to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" was there to begin with. As I noted, it does not actually refer to the purported district. Cobblet (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing verification. The name is not in the source given and neither in the official source the website referred. This should be deleted ASAP. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:28, 28 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) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ronan[edit]

Samuel Ronan (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 page should be deleted for the simple reason that this individual is not notable, as shown by the dearth of coverage by reliable sources. There is one CNN piece which covered a comment made by Ronan in a debate that CNN happened to air. There is an Al Jazeera interview with Ronan. Other than that, there are no reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for chair of a political party is not an automatic notability freebie per WP:NPOL, but this article neither makes any claim of preexisting notability for any other reason nor sources his candidacy for DNC chair well enough to suggest that it should be considered a special case over and above most other non-winning candidacies. It depends too strongly on primary sources, student media and activist blogs, and the few sources that actually pass our reliable sourcing standards do not represent an unusual volume of coverage that would make his candidacy more notable than usual. And none of his other competitors who also lost that race are considered notable because of that fact, either — Keith Ellison and Pete Buttigieg and Raymond Buckley have articles because they already held other notable offices before running for DNC chair, not because they ran for DNC chair and lost. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a candidate for various offices, but loosing, does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Largely per Bearcat. I can't find any significant coverage of the person to meet WP:GNG, and is not notable by WP:NPOL. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:53, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahati (Musician)[edit]

Bahati (Musician) (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 Gospel artist, Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete the current article is speedy-deletion-quality trash. Other refs such as [5] and [6] are slightly better, but don't show notability. This may be WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. The 2nd ref in power~enwiki's comment is the sort of thing we need to be able to write an article. So far, there seems to be only this one independent, substantial source. So agree with the TOOSOON. It being marginal, I could be swayed to Keep if what we currently had as an article were a well-written article based on this main source plus other passing mentions; but that is not the case. It is a truly minimal stub, so we lose nothing by deleting now, and when/if this musician's career generates more sources, someone can rewrite from scratch. Martinp (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to add if more reliable sources become available I'd be more than happy to send the creator to UNDELETE or failing that they can rewrite I no absolutely no objections to either, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 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 speedy keep. Misformed nomination. No prejudice against immediate renomination if it was, in fact, intended to be nominated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline_(2002_film)[edit]

Borderline_(2002_film (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)

(({text))} Geejayen (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic measurement procedure[edit]

Stochastic measurement procedure (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)

WP:OR based almost exclusively on the editor's own published work.Which is, it must be said, not in the most prestigious of journals. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with Stochastic prediction procedure as OR/self-promotion of non-notable work. Both articles are the author's very particular take, and as such are drastically more narrowly focused than their titles would suggest. XOR'easter (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Junk and original research like the rest of this walled garden. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThis article has a tag for not only not meeting WP:N, but it also has a tag for mostly relying on primary sources. Further more the article is written poorly so much so that after only a couple of sentences I was lost.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious WP:OR and promotion of primary source. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar and sourced from one source –Ammarpad (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - same as the other ones, mix of failing WP:NOR, and not having enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:17, 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. Seems like we don't have sufficient sources even after accounting for naming differences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanya Kroytor[edit]

Sanya Kroytor (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)

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

I could find virtually nothing about him in searches, and he does not appear to meet notability criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I removed the biography section, as it was a very close paraphrase of this bio. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not notable, as per the paucity of sources available and on the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO - Galatz^Talk 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is an alternate spelling of this violinists last name Kroytnor. Kroitor If you search for the name Sanya Kroitor, there is a multitude of articles with significant coverage. I added these ones to the article tonight. ^[1][2][3] There are plrnty more. This article passes WP:GNG and should be kept. It needs to be expanded not deleted. Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I added a search bar on Sanya Kroitor. User:Galatz, User:NewYorkActuary, User:Dom Kaos, User talk:Nomoskedasticity, do you want to revisit?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec)*comment Pinging nominator and all participators to this AFD, Onel5969, Galatz, NewYorkActuary, Dom Kaos, and Nomoskedasticity, to note the problem that this article subject had 2 alternate name spellings found. Most of the press and coverage I found was listed under the spelling Kroitor. As above I added references. The article now passes WP:GNG. I Would ask that previous !voters return to the article to re-assess your findings and reconsider your !vote. Thank you. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the search links and the sources and I do not see reason to change my view -- what's available is still insufficient. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in agreement with Nomoskedasticity. The newly-added sources simply don't demonstrate the artiste's significance in a way that passes WP:MUSICBIO ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, I agree with the above two editors. The new sourcing, and using the alternate names, does not yield the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources necessary to meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree as well, more hits but not RS. - Galatz^Talk 14:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while there is some coverage in reliable news media, there is no profile, not more than a brief sentence or two, and mere mentions. To seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON for this relatively early career violinist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quantification of randomness[edit]

Quantification of randomness (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 per Bernoulli space and thers, a free mix of WP:OR and [[WP:S{AM]] by an editor whose company is the main listed source. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR and spam. XOR'easter (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. The title could be something interesting but the content is useless and vague twaddle with no valid sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant WP:OR and promotion of primary source. I am in support of deleting all these OR articles by this user because they are all similar –Ammarpad (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:16, 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Bhat[edit]

Asha Bhat (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 is known only for a single event and that event is not a recognised or remarkably known event. The page is full of irrelevant biographical stuff. IMHO the subject does not meet WP:GNG and the article looks like WP:SPIP. Notability is also not backed up by independent sources. Hence I propose for deletion. Bharathiya (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would say that the sourcing could be better but that Globalbeauties are an independent and in my opinion third party source unrelated to the pageant. Miss Supranational is an established pageant today. AfD is not a clean-up service and article quality does not trump overall notability. WP:GNG as winner if a televised event. Plus noted modelling career.BabbaQ (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage in trade puiblications about beauty contests is not enough to show a beauty queen is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Personally no fan of these shows or TV in general, but subject easily passes the WP:GNG. I agree with nominator Bharathiya and BabbaQ that the article needs improvement, however, that is no rationale for deletion. gidonb (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  How? BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree that the article needs cleanup; we don't need to list where she's all been, but impressive news coverage in India. Running an NGO also seems notable. = paul2520 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All it takes is a glance at the extensive sources to see this is notable.Egaoblai (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage is present, notability has been established. WP:GNG is passed. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because despite the page needs improvement, this model, activist clearly passes WP:GNG. The sources used are largely established sources, and delete !votes here didn't come with any convincing argument.  — Ammarpad (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon McShurley[edit]

Sharon McShurley (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)

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. But all this actually does is state that she exists, and its only reference is a single comprehensive list in the local newspaper of all the city's past mayors -- a source that would support a list of the mayors, but doesn't singlehandedly represent enough significant press coverage to give each one a standalone bio under NPOL #2. For a mayor to get a standalone article, it needs to contain substance and a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of sourcing, not just to state that "she exists, the end". Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while the article is woefully underdeveloped and sourced, the fact that she is the first woman mayor of a major municipality I think qualifies to put her over the WP:GNG threshold. I think the article of her successor, Dennis Tyler, is much more problematic from a notability standpoint. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't automatically accept the first woman mayor of every place that ever had mayors as getting an instant notability freebie just because she's female — and WP:GNG is a measure of the article's sourcing, not of any claim stated in the article's text. If she were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear NPOL #2 (major local political figures who have received significant press coverage), then this would certainly be kept just the same as any other well-sourced mayor would (and would never even have been listed for AFD in the first place) — but the fact of being female doesn't automatically make her more notable than a man who otherwise has the same basic notability claim and the same depth of reliable sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the lede of WP:N, Wikipedia's notability is not based on fame or importance; and as per WP:NEXIST, GNG is not based on sourcing in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in this discussion said that notability was based on fame or importance, and while GNG is not based on sourcing in the article per se, it is not enough to simply assert that enough sourcing to pass GNG might exist somewhere — anybody could simply say that about anything. To get an article kept despite the inadequacy of its existing quality of sourcing, it needs to be definitively shown that sufficient sourcing does exist: namely, by actually showing the hard results of an actual search for better sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. There does not appear to be sufficient sourcing to suggest notability (i.e. national or international coverage of an otherwise low-profile individual. --Enos733 (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did you look for sourcing?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you? Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article lacks adequate sourcing. Being the first female mayor of a given place is not a sign of notability, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Grind Coffee House[edit]

It's a Grind Coffee House (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)

Indiscriminately promotional information supplied by the company press releases and noticed; at best, a delete and redirect is feasible as WP;What Wikipedia is not, a basic policy, takes precedence here. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article, after the creation of its AfD, was deleted under G11 by JzG. As the article is 1. already at AfD, and 2. was not also tagged, before or after the AfD nomination, for speedy deletion (and IMHO does not use the sort of language one usually associates with "unambiguous promotion") I have restored it to allow this AfD to take place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because process is more important than controlling spam. Well done. Slow clap. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not directory. This is about as minor and as poorly sourced as it gets. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! Not notable and not properly referenced.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! I can't believe this has been around since 2006. I read an encyclopedia to learn something. I don't learn anything from this article. It is not notable and very promotional. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:45, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Kauffman[edit]

Allan Kauffman (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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a former small-city mayor. The city has a population of just 33K, which is not large enough to hand a mayor an automatic presumption of notability just for existing -- but this isn't sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage, as its only source is a transcript of his own "state of the city" speech on his successor's self-published campaign website. There's simply not enough sourcing, or enough substance, here to deem him notable. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one source is not enough to show the mayor of such a small place is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  From WP:ATA's WP:BIG,

  "Delete An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is not notable. – Notbigenough, 04:56, 7 August 2006"

    posted by Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The nominator currently has 15 Indiana mayors nominated for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the hell what? Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the cursing?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're in for a real lifetime of hurt if you think someone saying "hell" is a serious enough offense to attempt to shame them for it. You do know that, right? Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Notability is not defined by sources in the article, see WP:N.  Nor do topics on Wikipedia require notability.  There is no evidence of a problem here.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, notability is contingent on sourceability, and topics on Wikipedia do require notability. If neither of those things were true, we would have to keep an unsourced article about every single person who ever existed at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the claim that "topics on Wikipedia...require notability" is erroneous.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. If topics on Wikipedia did not require notability, then we would have to keep an article about every single person, and every single thing, that exists at all. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum ad absurdum doesn't make fallacious arguments stronger.  I suggest that if you don't know that topics don't require notability, and you haven't figured out that I'm generally careful with my statements of fact, then find out instead of arguing with me.  The first sentence of WP:IGNORINGATD is, "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an argumentum ad absurdum in the least. It's exactly the logical conclusion of saying that topics don't have to be notable to have encyclopedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of unsourced articles is not directly related to Wikipedia's concept of notability, as notability is not a content guideline and notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unsourced articles are a problem

Yes, notability is defined outside of Wikipedia — by reliable source coverage in media that's independent of the topic's own WP:SPIP — and there's no evidence whatsoever that this person meets that definition. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  This is a case in point, because we now know that this AfD went for 13 days without any attempt being made to ascertain GNG notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep a poorly sourced article about a person who doesn't pass an SNG just because it's possible that better sources might exist. Poorly sourced articles are only kept if and when somebody does the work to show that enough sources to make the article keepable do exist. Notability is defined outside of Wikipedia by the existence or lack thereof of sufficient sourceability. That's what you're missing in your persistent campaign to separate sourceability from notability. A person can't have notability without sourceability, because by definition notability is contingent on being able to source an article properly. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mayor of a town with a population of about 31,000. The usual practice is to delete articles of local elected officials unless there is national or international coverage of the subject, beyond what is usually expected. There is nothing to indicate the subject is the recipient of national coverage for his role as mayor. --Enos733 (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  From reading the WP:BEFORE D1 snippets not mentioned in the nomination, there is sufficiently significant significant coverage to satisfy GNG.  Once the encyclopedia's history of Goshen is better developed, this article might be merged to a listicle of Goshen mayors or a history article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep "listicles" that contain extended biographical sketches of mayors; we keep lists that contain the mayors' names and term dates and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Local and routine news reports, in fact, do not satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:GNG; sustained national or, better yet, international coverage would if it existed for this mayor. However, in my WP:BEFORE search I found nothing but small-time regional coverage expected of a small-time politician. One editor here can shuffle and skew policies all they want by outlandish means but it does not change the lack of notability of this subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ROUTINE is an event guideline, whereas the topic here is a biography.  Claiming that GNG rejects local sources is a proof by assertion.  Claiming that GNG requires national coverage is also a proof by assertion.  The mayor was mayor for four terms, so how much attention does he have to have to consider it sustained?  Further, a WP:DEL8 argument does not ignore the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.  It is our policy to preserve the suitable contributions of others, and this is relevant history of Goshen.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As has been pointed out to you before, ROUTINE lists numerous examples which are types of coverage that pertain to people, such as birth and wedding and death announcements and run of the mill crime reports. So yes, ROUTINE is still applicable to people, because half of its own examples of what it means are about people. It does not pertain only to whether the topic of our article is an event or not, but most certainly does also pertain to whether or not certain types of coverage of certain types of events assist in demonstrating the individual notability of the people involved in those events. And a mayor of a small town most certainly does require significantly more coverage than most other mayors of most other towns of comparable size could also show before he's considered notable enough for an encyclopedia article, namely by having his coverage expand beyond where it's merely expected to exist. And we only have a practice of trying to preserve properly referenced and notable content — we do not have a policy of trying to preserve everything that anybody ever added to Wikipedia regardless of its failure to cite adequate sourcing or demonstrate an actual reason why it would belong here. We keep lists of mayors' names if we can find a reference that supports them; we do not keep unsourced biographical information about them beyond their names and term dates. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 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. After plowing through this wall of text, the policy and guideline based arguments clearly come down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Oberlie[edit]

Chuck Oberlie (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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a former small-city mayor. The city (pop. 31K) is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but this isn't sourced well enough to get him past WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage -- the only "references" here are a primary source bio fromthe website of a directly affiliated organization, and a single news article from the local newspaper about his decision not to run for another term in office. This is not enough to deem a small-city mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim is made "this <article> isn't sourced well enough to get <the topic> past WP:NPOL #2".  The claim is further made that the sources in the article are "not enough to deem a small-city mayor notable."  But WP:N states, "The absence of sources or citations in an article...does not indicate that a subject is not notable."  Unscintillating (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The claim that the article is "poorly" sourced has no basis in evidence in the nomination.  And if there is evidence, WP:BEFORE B3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is a relic of the overly permissive article creation guidelines that existed back in 2008. The fact that the article does not definitively tell when Mr. Oberlie's term in office ended, although it was about 6 or 7 years ago, shows just how little attention people in positions like this actually receive. My city has 4 times the population of Michigan City, and probably an even higher percent greater amount of economic activity, since in the dysfunction that is metro-Detroit, a suburb like mine attracts lots of Detroit residents to movie theatres, has many residents of other cities working in factories, and on and on. Yet our mayors are not notable for articles. I was a voice in the deleting of the article on Richard Notte, who was the mayor of my city of Sterling Heights for about 20 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the article infobox states the term end.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  I didn't see any problems that needed the attention of AfD.  The article, Michigan City mayor will not seek re-election by Stan Maddux Times Correspondent, Dec 1, 2010, is in-depth and what is envisioned as a good article by GNG.  The profile published by the government of Indiana is also in-depth.  I also found a number of helpful snippets on WP:BEFORE D1 Google books, that the article by Stan Maddux tied together.  One of these dates back to 1976.  I didn't see a need to look any further.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Michigan City mayor will not seek re-election" represents a type of article that every single person who'd ever been mayor of anywhere could always show from the local media, so no, it does not represent a WP:GNG pass in and of itself. And the "Government of Indiana" source is not independent of Oberlie, because it's from a government body (the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Committee) which he's been a member of — that makes it a directly affiliated source that cannot support notability, not a reliable and independent source for the purposes of clearing a Wikipedia notability standard. People are not handed an automatic wikinotability freebie just because they have "our board members" or "our staff" profiles on the self-published website of their own employers or organizational affiliations. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article I cited is a good article, where the commonly cited benchmark at WT:N to pass GNG is two good articles.  No two mayors are alike. 

Articles published by the government of Indiana are published by the people of Indiana, and such sources are generally WP:RS, in spite of your mysterious claim to the contrary. 

The world of the "wikinotability freebie" is imaginary.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not published by the state government of Indiana, but by the Northeastern Indiana Regional Planning Committee: a regional government organization of which he's a member, and thus not one whose self-published bios of its own staff or board represent independent coverage by an unaffiliated source. And no, GNG is not simply a matter of being able to surpass two sources — I've previously listed many examples of the types of articles about unencyclopedic nobodies we would have to start keeping if that were all it took. GNG is not just a matter of having an arbitrary number of sources, but a contextual test that can be passed by just one source in certain instances and can be failed by six or seven sources in others.
And incidentally, yes, the "freebie" is imaginary in the sense that it's not a thing we do — but the word represents a completely accurate assessment of what some people seem to think we do. "We should always keep an article about any mayor of anywhere the moment one source verifies that they existed" certainly isn't a thing that represents the reality of how Wikipedia works — but it is how some people seem to think Wikipedia works, and the fact that those people are wrong is precisely what I mean when I use the phrase "notability freebie": I always negate it by saying that something isn't one, and have never used it in the context of being an affirmative thing that anybody actually gets. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "completely accurate assessment" is your own self-assessment.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And an absolutely 100 per cent correct one. That is exactly how some people do think Wikipedia works. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for standards for GNG, the commonly cited benchmark at WT:N to pass GNG is two good articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if all a topic had to do to get into Wikipedia was show two sources, we would have to keep an article about: every single person who'd ever been mayor of anywhere; every single person who'd ever been a fire chief or a police chief of anywhere; everybody who ever opened a restaurant anywhere; people whose only notability claim is that they happen to have an unusual number of toes; my mother's neighbour and her pig; and me. To be kept on the basis of just two sources, those sources have to be supporting a notability claim that passes an automatic "must-include" criterion like "Member of Congress". If a person does not pass an automatic must-include criterion, but rather their notability criterion is dependent on the depth of media coverage, then it does take considerably more than just two sources to get there. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was published by www.in.gov.  I put that URL in my browser and it reported "Copyright © 2017 State of Indiana".  The point is that you've dropped your claim that the website was other than reliable.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered a reliable source, a reference has to be media coverage that's independent of the subject. An "our board members" bio written and published by an organization that the subject is directly affiliated with is not an independent source, and therefore not a reliable or notability-supporting one. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, why did you not cite from WP:RS?  The answer is that it is not true.  Here is a diff added to the encyclopedia today of a source reliable for the purpose for which it was added, that is not independent.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source can be trustworthy for the simple verification of a fact in an article, and yet not reliable for the purposes of demonstrating that the topic is actually notable. A school's own website is obviously trustworthy on the question of who the school's principal is — but if the school's basic notability were in question, its own website would not, in and of itself, be a source that made it notable. And the NIRPC source works the same way: if there were a purely factual question about whether or not Oberlie had actually served on the NIRPC, then that source would obviously answer that. But if the question is whether Oberlie is notable enough to have an article at all, then the NIRPC bio is not a source that bolsters or assists his notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Delete I have added some information and a handful of references (several of which are newspaper articles) in an effort to improve the article but I'm not sure it reaches the level of notability. Leschnei (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought; should smaller cities have a 'former mayors' section for their mayors who do not reach notability on their own? Leschnei (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find a source that enables us to properly list all of the mayors, then yes, we do regularly permit lists of mayors either as a subsection of the town or city article or as a standalone "List of mayors of X". The challenge is that sometimes we can rely on just one or two good sources for a complete list (I created List of mayors of Muncie, Indiana just last week — because even with no knowledge of the city whatsoever besides being aware that it exists, I was able to locate a source that provided a complete list of all the mayors), but sometimes it would require much more complex research to track down a variety of sources to properly support the complete list. The only thing we don't allow, though, is unsourced lists of mayors. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the above discussion, I found a book that lists the mayors from the town's incorporation through 1906, and there are about 25 mayors! An entire list of mayors would be much too long for the Michigan City article, and a stand-alone list of mostly (all?) non-notable people is not worth the effort. Muncie is a bigger city, and I see that many of its mayors are notable. A brief search tells me that the same would not be true for Michigan City's mayors. It think that this article will have to stand or fall on its own. Leschnei (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added, after my comment above, that I am changing my vote from weak keep to delete. I have made an edited my vote above to reflect that. Leschnei (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The usual standard that an elected official must pass to meet the notability standards of Wikipedia is WP:NPOL with common outcomes described at WP:POLOUTCOMES. For local mayors, reaching notability usually means receiving national or international press coverage for their service as mayor. The reason for this is that most elected officials remain low profile individuals through and after their terms of office. This means that there is presumption of privacy and there is a community expectation that authors should "focus on high-quality secondary sources" when dealing with relatively-unknown individuals [See WP:NPF]" In this case, there does not appear to be any sources that suggests that the subject received coverage "beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role" WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Enos733: The link you provide, WP:LPI, states,

  A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention... Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.

  As per our article, sourced by the Stan Maddoux article, "He was elected mayor", so he ran for office publicly.  Elected officials are public individuals.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And Wikipedia does not automatically accept every mayor of everywhere as notable enough for an encyclopedia article, if the "attention" they received was merely the normal degree of coverage in their local media. In a city of this size, the mayor's profile needs to significantly nationalize to escape LPI — it is not enough that he simply has exactly the same purely local profile that any mayor of anywhere always has. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, Wikipedia does not automatically accept every mayor of everywhere as notable enough for an encyclopedia article.  Sometimes, the topic is notable, but whether or not the topic is notable, in general the status of having been a mayor is important enough to the history of the community and therefore the history of the world that the topic is significant.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Passing GNG is only a presumption of passing WP:N notability, yes.  But in general, "normal" attention suggests that there is a significant amount of significant coverage, which means the topic satisfies the definition of GNG notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't. By definition, "normal" coverage is the coverage that every mayor always gets, but we do not accept that every mayor always qualifies for a Wikipedia article just for being a mayor per se. A mayor's notability depends on being able to show significantly more sourceability — much greater volume, or much wider geographic range, than what's simply normal and expected for every mayor to always get. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• GNG is also commonly used in deletion discussions.  WP:N treats NPOL and GNG as equally valid paths to determine notability.  WP:BASIC is another path.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If a person doesn't clear NPOL because their political role isn't an inherently notable one, then they have to be able to show quite a lot more coverage than most other people who've held the same non-notable role elsewhere before they clear GNG. For example, if a city isn't large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability for the fact of being mayor of a major city itself, then to get kept they have to show quite a lot more sourceability than most other smalltown mayors could also show. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Note that GNG has no exception for local sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not prevent local sources from being included in the overall sourcing pool for a topic, but our notability standards most certainly do weed out most classes of people who can be sourced only to a small handful of purely local sources. GNG is not simply a matter of surpassing an arbitrary number of sources — it most certainly does depend on contextual considerations. One source is enough to get an actor into Wikipedia if that source is confirming that said actor won an Oscar, while ten sources are not enough to get an actor into Wikipedia if those sources are just confirming that he's had roles at a local dinner theatre in Podunk, Missouri. GNG most certainly does take into account contextual variables — the less "automatically includable" the person's notability claim is, the stronger in volume or geographic range (or both) the sourcing has to get before they're actually considered notable enough to pass GNG. GNG is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping every single article that happens to have more than two of them — because as I've pointed out many times before, literally millions of people have been written about twice by their local newspapers without having achieved anything that would make them belong in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR, but the bottom line is that GNG has no exception for local sources.  I fell into this trap once at an AfD and !voted to delete a band that was only covered in local sources, but I was wrong and the article was kept.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that GNG does not prevent local sources from being included in a mix of sources for a person who has a clean pass of a subject-specific notability criterion. But if a topic's notability claim is "fails all relevant SNGs but is still notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then they are deemed to fail GNG if said media coverage consists exclusively of purely local coverage exclusively in the topic's own hometown. I can't judge this band AFD without seeing it, but it's entirely possible that they actually passed an actual WP:NMUSIC criterion quite independently of how local or non-local the sourcing happened to be — and it's also entirely possible that the conclusion of that discussion was just wrong and has to be revisited, because perhaps nobody actually made any policy-based arguments at all. But I can't know which of those is the case without knowing what specific discussion you're talking about. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - First note, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", according to WP:NPOL. The subject clearly does not receive significant coverage; evidence to this is in the poorly-referenced article and an easy-to-do WP:BEFORE search which garners little else. I would elaborate further but Bearcat has hit the nail right on the head several times already above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N states that, "The absence of sources or citations in an article...does not indicate that a subject is not notable."  WP:PERNOM statements, "add little to the discussion".  And if you are ignoring the WP:ATD, you can't claim to have made a policy-based WP:DEL8 !vote.  As for the claim that WP:BEFORE D1 garnered "little else", what about the snippets I already identified?  Since notability is not defined by a WP:BEFORE D1 search, it might help to know what more you want to see.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As I already stated, Bearcat has had to school you on policy and reliable sources up and down the board. There really is not much more I need to reiterate. The fact that you don't listen to him or don't have the competency to understand what he has to say does not concern me. I suggest you stop bludgeoning the AFD process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is something I don't get, that you resist the force of reason, instead of getting in its flow.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unscintillating, by the looks of your poor AFD stats, maybe (and I know this may be crazy) you are the one who resists the "force of reason"? Brush up on some policies, read them for what they actually say, and you'll find these discussions much more easier.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your post talks about policies as something others should do, while your posts here ignore the policy WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and cite confrontational essays.
  Ad hominems are not necessarily fallacies, but here it appears that they are all that is left of your logical position after it has stripped bare by the force of reason.  Instead of taking it, you can join it.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 28 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maari 2 (film)[edit]

Maari 2 (film) (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, not yet created movie which neither meet WP:GNG no WP:NFILM entirely  — Ammarpad (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON: I would suggest merging into Maari (film), but there's not really anything to merge ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel's Church[edit]

Immanuel's Church (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)

Appears to be a non-notable church. Most news coverage appears to be related to a suicide at the church, which does not count as non-trivial coverage. The 2013 AFD on the page resulted in a keep but the reasoning is not persuasive.TM 16:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The previous AFD discussion (thank you for linking to that) focused on this being a megachurch and there being a consensus in practice that megachurches are notable, which seems reasonable to me. This Washington Times article (only partially available online) was linked in the AFD and seems like a very substantial source. Sure, I believe you if a flurry of recent news articles focus on a random-like event, but it is still a megachurch and there appears to have been other substantial coverage about it. --doncram 03:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable mega church. There are earlier Washington Post stories regarding 1) Smardz, Zofia (13 April 2006). "Some Jews See Trespass in Church Seders". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 January 2013. 2) Sedam, Sean (7 June 2006). "Gay conversion conference criticized". Gazette.net. Retrieved 31 March 2013. User:bschoeni 4:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GIDS Shahpar[edit]

GIDS Shahpar (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 real coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's enough information here to satisfy the WP:GNG, barely, and standards that have been universally applied to aircraft - it appears to have indeed flown and entered production. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We generally keep military aircraft/UAV that entered serial production. a BEFORE convinces me there are enough google news and books hits to pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SATUMA Mukhbar[edit]

SATUMA Mukhbar (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 real coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In general, it's long-standing consensus that aircraft that have flown are included in Wikipedia. However, in this case, even leaving aside the thorny issue of where the line is with UAVs vis-a-vis manned aircraft when it comes to that, it doesn't appear to be verifiable that this UAV has flown, as opposed to being an entry with a pretty picture in a manufacturer's catalogue. If anybody can find "yes, it flew" evidence, ping me and I'll happily change my !vote, but until then - - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sourced from manufacturer (404 dead link). Scaled down version of other UAV (SATUMA Jasoos) which might have not entered production. Mainly passing mentions - [7] [8] [9] as yet another UAV in the lineup of the company. Possible to merge some content to SATUMA Jasoos if we pass WP:V that this is indeed a scaled-down model (the passing mentions above do not specify this).Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lipstick Kiss (song)[edit]

Black Lipstick Kiss (song) (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)

Poorly sourced article about a song, by a band who don't even have a Wikipedia article at all. This does technically make enough of a notability claim to preclude being speedied A9 (musical recording by a recording artist who doesn't have a Wikipedia article), but not enough of one to actually pass WP:NSONGS: the charting claims are tied to campus radio, not to any IFPI-certified national chart that would pass NMUSIC #2, and the award nominations are not major ones for the purposes of NMUSIC #8 -- notability because awards attaches to awards on the level of the Junos or the Grammys or the Polaris, not the RightOut Awards or the Fetisch Film Festival. And none of the references represent reliable source coverage about the song, either -- it's referenced entirely to primary sources, IMDb and blogs, not to any real media coverage. As always, we do not create or keep an article about every single song that exists -- there are certain specific standards of notability and sourceability that a song has to surpass for an article to become earned, but this doesn't satisfy any of them. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the nom, the references are simply to non-notable source, and doesn't seem to qualify the specific notability guideline. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Last Temptation of Reid. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Your Clock[edit]

I Am Your Clock (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 a rarity but without any sources to make a claim for WP:GNG. If what the articles says -- that it was a limited edition release for The Last Temptation of Reid -- it could be redirected there. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Last Temptation of Reid. The song certainly was originally included as a free bonus 12" inside the sleeve of that LP, and as it later featured as an additional track on subsequent CD reissues of the album, it makes sense to redirect the article to the album where you can find the song. Richard3120 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khyber Mail (newspaper)[edit]

Khyber Mail (newspaper) (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 NPAPER and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, was WP:BEFORE performed here or not? Some mentions: "PESHAWAR NEWSPAPERS: Among the English newspapers, the 'Khyber Mail' was the most outstanding. It was started as a weekly in 1932, and converted into a daily in 1950." ([10]), "Among the English newspapers, the “Khyber Mail” was and continues to be the most Prominent." ([11]), "The Khyber Mail developed into an influential English daily but, on the whole, even in Peshawar the Urdu newspapers..." ([12]), "Across the way is the solemn-fronted office of the Khyber Mail, the Frontier's leading and only English language newspaper in which debates in the UN and skirmishes on the Mohmand Border are featured side by side." ([13]) --Soman (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Soman. I don't think WP:BEFORE has been followed for many of the nominator's recent AfD spree. Mar4d (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:06, 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 and redirect to Medieval Bulgarian army. Clearly there is a consensus to delete this specific content, but this is a plausible search term and the target article would provide information on the topic, so a redirect seems reasonable. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval battles of the Bulgarian Army[edit]

Medieval battles of the Bulgarian Army (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 a POV fork of the similar list in Medieval Bulgarian army, which apparently was also included by an IP in Bulgarian Armed Forces; Bulgarian military history articles have long suffered from editors (usually IP addresses) who keep adding a whole list of spurious "battles" (unsurprisingly, mostly Bulgarian victories) without reference to any source, riddled with typos, inaccuracies, and sundry problems. The very inclusion of this list in the Bulgarian Armed Forces article, or the use of the modern coat of arms of Bulgaria betray the nationalist POV behind this, implicitly linking the Bulgarian Army of the present-day country to the medieval period. Constantine ✍ 15:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a single reference cited; I doubt if flagging the page would reveal any.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no problems with seeing this deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. No RS cites; no way to confirm information given. Kierzek (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As POV fork per nom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - we have List of wars involving Bulgaria, which has a number of improvement needed tags. I think lists of battles is a bit too detailed and unconnected to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential keep - List of wars involving Bulgaria conflates medieval and modern Bulgaria, as if there were continuity, ignoring a gap of over 300 years in the middle. It is duplicating a list in Bulgarian Armed Forces, but the answer might be to remove the list from that one and keep both. If there are some engagements about which there is doubt, the answer is to edit them out, not to delete the whole article. I would strongly suggest that WP should treat modern Bulgaria (since the Balkan Wars of 19th-early 20th centuries as a different country from the medieval Bulgarian Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally, yes. but here a correct list already exists, in Medieval Bulgarian army; the list under discussion here is an exercise in POV editing that was (correctly) excised from an unrelated article. It is better to delete it altogether, and then, if necessary/desirable, consider whether to extract the list in Medieval Bulgarian army as a stand-alone article. I note that the conflation of the First and Second Bulgarian empires is also not entirely unproblematic, since they are vastly different states in terms of territorial extent, culture, organization, etc. but I can live with that. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 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) 17:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing[edit]

Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing (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)