< 20 November	22 November >

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

The result was delete. Salt needs to be ordered at WP:RFPP since this meal does not ordinarily need it (meaning: I can not find enough recreations to justify creation protected) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DbSUPER[edit]

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

Non-notable database, nothing has changed since the last half dozen times it's been deleted. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT title Database of Super-enhancers, which this version was originally created at. The current title is already salted. Home Lander (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the title, so it cannot be re-created. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:25, 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) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathar Sanko[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of short stories; after removing "references" (with explanations in edit summary) which were not reliable or independent sources, no references were left to speak of. The article author, Taniya94, has also defended a hardly notable short story by an author who has a book coming up with the publisher of the subject of this nomination; and a draft of an article about another book from this publisher, with refs mostly taken from the Facebook of the publisher and the author, is currently in the works. This same user appears to be knowledgeable about the parent company of the publisher, which is strange for a regular fan of films and books that she on the surface appears to be. Note that the draft mentioned above is of a book that comes out tomorrow (Indian timezone), so it's weirdly timed if we are talking about a random fan, but speaks to the excellent project execution skills if we are talking about someone who is on the launch team. This raises concerns about whether there is a conflict of interest here. Funny that the user also claims that she "created more than 50 articles and always tried to write it in a neutral point of view, never intended to promote someone or something". I'm saying we should probably start taking defenses of obviously non-notable products by this person with a grain of salt. ––Latreia (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPD: I've determined that the article author (Taniya94) runs a small sockpuppet ring. Evidence to be found here. Not her fault, most probably, just her job, and I've probably gotten her in trouble, right before a major release. Sorry. ––Latreia (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--After release it has became one of the best-selling books of this era--How much were you paid to write this statement?!Zero notability.And almost nil reviews (or even one-line mentions) in prominent Bengali dailies.Winged Blades^Godric 06:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There references that were in the article as of this version are what is stated by the nominator. It's a mixed bag of unreliable sources such as blogs, or directory listings or references that don't even mention the subject and confirm nothing. This looks like a case of reference bombing to make the article look well-referenced when in fact it woefully referenced. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not nearly enough coverage to establish significant notability. Could also be a COI issue with the article creator. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:27, 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) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Bushby[edit]

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

Non-notable trainer and only sources are unreliable (ie. blogs) and otherwise lacking in necessary coverage for inclusion. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom: vanity/promotional piece. Nothing beyond local coverage suitable for minor characters. 24.42.163.147 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable bodybuilder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaeden[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. There are more than a dozen good profile pieces in reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles on musicians must meet our more stringent requirements for musician notability, which are not met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If a subject meets the main General notability guideline, it is not required for them to meet secondary notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is definitely enough coverage to establish notability, in this instance. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Clearly referenced as per available sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:38, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial election of 1376[edit]

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

There are several of these kinds of pages that are formed as a series. They were all created by User:Dallyripple who split them off from the main article, Imperial election. All of these articles have the section Election of X (year), followed by a the subsections Electors and Elected. However, this series of articles does not seem to meet the WP:N criterion. Firstly, the topics of this article series are too trivial (and don't seem to have WP:RS due to that). This information has been contained in the Imperial election article ever since it was created by User:RandomCritic so it may also be WP:OR. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the rest of the articles in the series. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the assertion that any election of a Holy Roman Emperor is a trivial or non-notable event. Dallyripple (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dallyripple (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Trout Dailyripple for creating these pages without any references. The topics are likely notable, and the wikilinks are reference enough to keep the pages until they can be improved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the name "Imperial election" is perfectly clear to me, but only because I've played Europa Universalis IV too much. I would support a rename proposal to include some version of "Holy Roman Empire" in the article titles. power~enwiki (π, ν)

Please withdraw this frivolous nomination TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to Imperial election, from where they were all removed. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Icewhiz that new structure is better. It's probably should be linked to Imperial election, but independent article for each election allows more information to be added. All these elections in one article make it unreadable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my pithy !vote above: this might be the worst AfD nomination I have ever seen on Wikipedia, so I don't think it deserves more comment on the substance that that. Just responding to DrKay: I think this format is better. Its what we follow for papal conclaves, and the overwhelming majority of them almost as horrible as these articles. Its a good format because it allows others to improve them more easily than if they were in a larger article (its how I started improving the conclave series). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni I totally agree here. Is there another forum that people might use if they have problems with a page? It seems like people are impatient to use a talk page on the topic and so think the only option to get anyone talking about a page is to submit things for deletion. Is there any accountability process for users who abuse this process?Egaoblai (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. AfD is the wrong forum - this is really a question of whether to merge back into Imperial election from where these were all removed (cut and paste). I think the new organization is better - citations should be improved in the sub-articles as well as in Imperial election. I think Dailyripple should've posted on the parent article's talk-page prior to branching all of these off, and should've added references.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, discuss on the talk page. Both the previous structure (all in one page) and the current structure (lots of pages) are possible models for the organisation of this content. At the very least, the page titles need to exist as redirects (perfectly valid link targets). The idea that there could be a problem with WP:N or WP:RS is fairly laughable. —Kusma (t·c) 10:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all Election of a Holy Roman emperor can't be not notable event. Articles will need improvement and references, but no doubt it's a notable event in history. For a while they all can be tagged as stub. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, similarly notable events as papal elections. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The election of the Holy Roman Emperor was a major event in Europe and often influenced other events. The 1519 election for example had major influence on relations between European states including the power struggles between Charles V and France. It also had an impact on the Reformation as Charles V's handling of Luther was shaped by the fact he did not want to alienate the Elector of Saxony. However, I agree the articles as they stand need work. Dunarc (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with all above. The idea that the election of a Holy Roman Emperor could somehow be non-notable is ludicrous. These were major, world-altering events. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a series of notable, referenced events. The pages do need improvement, and ideally wouldn't be vaguely named "Imperial election" but rather something closer to what they were. "Holy Roman Emperor election"? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above clearly notable events .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- These are all substantive articles. Some of the elections had foregone conclusions, but they were nevertheless important events. At CFD, there has been a question over the limited amount of content in earlier periods. Here is some of that content. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KAP03, why are you adding more articles to this AfD that has no chance of closing as delete? You should withdraw this rather than adding more articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 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. Discounting Govindaharihari's WP:WAX comment, there seems to be consensus that this is a relatively routine crime with little lasting significance, and therefore more of a news item. Sandstein 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein[edit]

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

An insane man drives over a person. Aden's mother Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said her son also was Muslim and, like the victim, was Somali.She confirms he was a Muslim not a christian and it is not a hate crime. [1] ,[2]This article is violation of General notablity guildline and notnews guildline routine everyday murder or accident by an insane person does not deserve an article.Girdlast888 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Girdlast888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCRIME If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable - the outcome of the investigation/trial (sane/insane, hate/no-hate, etc.) - has little to do with notability. What makes an event notable - is coverage. In this case - we have copious coverage from around the 2014 event itself (in top-notch sources - including NYT for instance). We also have WP:LASTING coverage various news outlets - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9]. Books - [10] [11] [12]. Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it should be relevant to the outcome, but per ABC news in Oct 2016 - [13] The driver of the SUV, Ahmed H. Aden, 34, a Somali Christian truck driver, later pleaded guilty to murder. - nom is incorrect in stating insanity and Muslim faith of the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His Muslim faith is claimed by his mother and I think that is reliable and mentioned in multiple sources. Aden's mother, Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said her son also was Muslim and, like the victim, was Somali.[14], [15] ,[16] Aden's mother, Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said through an interpreter that her Somali son is Muslim [17],[18] I am not well versed with Wikipedia policies as I am new but an ordinary murder is not notable thousands of such murders including those mentioned in leading newspapers daily and which are covered in the media.Girdlast888 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His mother apparently said this close to the incident. Later sources dot repeat this claim. People can convert. In any event the perp's faith is irrelevant to notability.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Note - the mother of a suspect is usually not considered a RS, and is typically viewed as highly biased in favor of the suspect.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Icewhiz I have no comment on notability yet but please do not try to use namedrops and passing mentions as proof of "lasting coverage". Literally, all those sources briefly mention the incident and are about another more notable subject or incident. Of course, there was coverage soon after the killing -- that fits nicely into WP:NOTNEWS. Regardless, I am sure this article will be kept because enough editors will take your listing here at face value rather than actually evaluate their lack of depth.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This case does not seem to pass our notability guidelines. It is not even clear if it was a hate crime. If it was, one should think about creating a more general page, i.e. Anti-Muslim violence in the United states. That might be valid page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Considering that the claims that the perpetrator of the crime was Muslim and not Chrisitan according to his own family members, most of the categorizing is flawed, and reflects the fact this was a rushed to assumption news story advanced to back a particular narrative, one that proved false and we should not continue to advance in a reliable encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry but the misleading "coverage" listed here, as well as the immediate and short-lived news surrounding this subject does not convince me. The notability criteria for events specifies that reports -- even if they are widespread -- on their own are not enough to establish notability. Historical and/or societal significance are indicators. Some editors may argue that those cannot be established with a recent news event and I can argue that the article shouldn't be created in the first place if notability is that questionable. I wish the criteria for events could be applied more accurately for terrorism-related AFDs but for now I will worry about this individual incident and hope editors come to the proper conclusion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Substantive coverage that has continued for years meets WP:NCRIME. Article is in need of expansion, updating.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC) see new iVote below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note coverage of politicization of this case: Kansas GOP Criticized for Controversial ISIS-Themed Flier.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is about the killing of one Somali American by another. It seems to have been suspected as a hate-crime, but this seems doubtful. The issues are whether the conversion to Christianity was genuine and the culprit's vanity. It sounds as if this was a case that attracted much press attention; if so, it should be kept as a notorious case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCRIME and the coverage is all news reports, i.e. WP:PRIMARY. This does not meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:BLP for both the victim and the perpetrator; the event itself is not notable as of now and this appears to a sad but routine thing. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid deletion rationale: BLP does not protect convicted murderers, or their dead victims. (Also, Deliberately ramming an SUV into a pedestrian is not "routine.")E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is plenty of similar stuff kept and well supported on this wiki. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So keep because other stuff that doesn't belong already exists?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, better than delete, WP:I don't like it 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

*Delete I came back to source, expand the brief, confusing article, and found that a more careful look at sources changed my opinion. After the brief flurry of coverage caused by the impression that a murder-by-vehicle-ramming by a perp with anti-Islam bumper-stickers on his vehicle who deliberately ran over Muslim must be an anti-Muslim hate crime, there really has been very little coverage. Presumably because it turned out not to be a hate crime. Fails WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with apologies to editors whose patience I am trying, I have been trying to get this right. Because the coverage was international at the time of this vehicle-ramming attack; because it was a deliberate attack on persons leaving a Muslim house of prayer by a perp whose anti-Islam views were written all over his SUV (whether perp was Christian or Muslim;) an dbecause of ongoing coverage like this reported 2017 article 3 Years, 5 Horrific Hate-Crime Killings In The Kansas City Area, this murder-by-vehicle meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Floating an idea Clearly, the brief flurry of coverage was generated by the assumption that this was a hate crime. We seem to run this drill a lot. For example, we have Killing of Nabra Hassanen. They cannot be merged to our List of Islamophobic incidents. Which makes me wonder whether we could use a List of crimes initially mistaken for hate crimes. Not merely as a redirect target, but because these allegations tend to resurface, so providing a few facts about incidents that have attracted media attention before turning out not to be hate crimes might be useful. opinions? E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perp was convicted for murder here. I do not see sources for this alleged mistaken classification -- those cĺaiming this here are claiming this from stuff the perp's mother said close to the event - and while RS reported what the mother said, she is not RS. Regardless this does not affect notability which per NCRIME is determined by coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheGracefulSlick. Such news coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and we can't have stand-alone articles based on this. Störm (talk) 11:16, 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) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim (American Band)[edit]

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

This article has been been unreferences since its creation and I do not see anything that indicates notability. ★Trekker (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBAND ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. My searches don't show that they don't meet notability criteria. Since their greatest claim to fame is their YouTube channel, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article from SPA editor. Searches find social media and trivial/promotional coverage in minor blogs and user submitted websites. A bit hard to vet because of a Tiawanese group with the same name (BTW, their notability is dubious as well, although a bit better coverage than this one.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sable Winters[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Doesn't meet notability requirements
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 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. Sandstein 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus Saves the Earth[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The only references are database-like entries at GameFAQ, and a very bizarre Youtube video. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna start a discussion at Village pump soon, to make it so that all video games that were officially released on a console are notable for their own articles. Okay, so I get the concern for "non-notability" that the content is not verifiable. But I don't care how many references you have; the fact that Santa Claus Saves the Earth is a video game for the GBA and PS1 IS true and will forever be true. The name of the game will never change, and the gameplay will always be the same. Console games are constant, never-changing, and absolute. They should be treated like geographical locations. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus if you're gonna delete this one, why don't you start a rampage and delete all 2,000 or whatever of the other video game articles with only 1 reference. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but wait, there are NEWS SOURCES THAT MENTION THE GAME: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Santa+Claus+Saves+the+Earth%22&tbm=nws CASE CLOSED ANYWAY!!! Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a rule that all console games are notable, and I don't think there should be. I also don't think a Vice article that says when people occasionally make lists of "holiday video games" this somehow ends up being included, simply for the lack of options. and only describes game as thoroughly broken and cheaply produced suggests that it's notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion would be a massive violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia isn't a listing of all console games, just like it's not a listing of all PC games. If you want that, go to Mobygames. You are misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let WT:VG know when you're about to start that discussion. I think a lot of us are very interested. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look more closely. I saw SIX news sources that mention the game. The game can't be unnotable by Wikipedia's current standards. It'd have to be a huge coincidence:

Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only conceivable reason to keep would be that it was so bad that it received egregiously bad reviews and achieved notoriety - but this doesn't seem to be the case ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable video game. Articles listed are not significant mentions in reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You people are serious? This is a GAME! A GAME! And not only is it a game, but it's also a console game, a notoriously bad game (yes it is!), it was reviewed by Caddicarus who's like somewhere next to AVGN in fame, 6 news sources, and it's not even a franchise game like most bad games. It's an ORIGINAL pile of shit, and not just a pile of shit named after a TV show. Yes, it needs a Wikipedia article. Think about how much more useful it would be to have this article than to delete it. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article is either notable or it isn't, there's no sliding scale that says an unimportant, cool, original, or whatever you think the article is makes it get a free pass. You should read the WP:GNG and get an idea of what is allowed on Wikipedia or not._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so Clyde, South Carolina is notable. Bullshit. If geographical locations get inherent notability, console games should too. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really need to slow down and read up some on how WP:AFD works, arguments to avoid in the discussions, etc. You're throwing out invalid arguments faster than anyone can keep up at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you spend more time finding suitable references for this article, that you spend less time worrying about other content (particularly other content which has different notability criteria by community consensus) and that you stop spending any time having a temper tantrum about this proposed deletion. Nick (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you're comparing geographical locations with video games is beyond me. You're saying WP:WHATABOUTX?!, while we're discussing Santa Claus Saves the Earth. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure of the WP:GNG, most sources are not reliable sources, or are passing/short mentions in listicle articles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because it exists, does not make it notable. Of the sources listed above:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w7mwn/video-games-also-have-holiday-classics-127 - a two paragraph summary of the game, and the article itself is not focused on the game

http://emorywheel.com/spyro-the-dragon-a-classic-masterpiece/ - It's mentioned in one throwaway sentence

https://www.wired.com/2007/12/santas-top-five/ - Same with the VICE article, a very short "hey this game exists"

http://www.gram.pl/artykul/2013/12/24/grinch-ebenezer-scrooge-gry-wideo-czy-branza-nie-lubi-swiat.shtml - It's noted as a game featuring Santa Claus in one sentence

https://www.delfi.lt/mokslas/technologijos/verslas-is-lietuvos-pasieke-pavydetina-vartotoju-skaiciu.d?id=63603032 - This focuses on the developer of the game, not the game itself

https://www.guiltybit.com/los-10-peores-juegos-psx/ - Again one sentence.

While the game was mentioned in these articles, it's not covered significantly "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." These are all trivial mentions of the game. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our general inclusion criteria and the video game notability guideline. The subject of the article is not the subject of significant coverage in the sources given. I've looked for other sources and can't find any myself. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a SNOW situation. No significant coverage, no clear notability. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 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) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Muirhead[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite the article's (unsourced) claims of the subject having played senior football, I can find no evidence to back this up from statistical sources such as Soccerbase and Neil Brown. Therefore he fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played or managed in a fully professional league, and WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Jellyman (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It looks like a previous version of the same article was deleted in 2008. Jellyman (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete Does not seem to be any evidence he played senior matches. The Queens Park figures at least must be wrong - if any goalie had scored 10 in 11 appearances they would be in every football reference book! Dunarc (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the first AfD in 2009 this issue arose for not playing in fully professional league and upto now he has not, clear failing of WP:NFOOTBALL; in addition, there is no substantial coverage about the rest of his life thus, failing basic WP:GNG — Ammarpad (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Misformed nomination, identical to the one nominated just a few moments before. Per The Bushranger below, no prejudice against immediate renomination if it was, in fact, intended to be nominated. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline_(2002_film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(({text))} Geejayen (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dhwani (band)[edit]

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

This article has had multiple people edit-warring over a speedy tag, so I'm bringing the discussion here. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although this clearly meets speedy deletion criteria (WP:A7). Unless I'm mistaken, @Creativejon's IP sock puppetry and repeated blanking of speedy deletion tags shouldn't mean that the discussion gets moved to AfD -- it should still go through CSD. cnzx (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I declined a CSD A7 on this because there is a Times of India source, Indian topics get less online coverage generally than UK / US ones, and it seemed to be a nationally famous group. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with @Cnzx that this is A7 stuff. Certainly fails WP:NMUSIC. Ajf773 (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. They have a Facebook page and a YouTube channel, but don't appear to be signed: looking at their website, they're a wedding/function band. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A quick Google search shows what Ritchie333 states. The problem is that our default search may not sufficient. Try the following: Dhwani band -"Dhwani Pandya" -"Dhwani Sutra". I found two news sources not already listed in the article: [19] [20]. Bands don't need to be signed to have an article. They have to show some notability. This is the minimal requirement in my estimation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate, that second source you list isn't about the band, but rather about the band's former lead vocalist. I'm on the fence. Personally I have always viewed criterion #1 in WP:BAND (the significant coverage) as a criterion that shouldn't stand alone but should be combined with one of the others. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, isn't the first source unrelated to the band in the Wiki article? cnzx (talk)
Um... the only source cited in the article is all about the band. What are you referring to? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion -- I was talking about the two you linked above. cnzx (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: the first source you mention is about a small college festival which happens to share a name with the band. The only musicians mentioned are "singer-songwriter Mohit Chauhan, folk fusion band Lagori and an EDM party with top DJs", and the similarity in name appears to be coincidence. The second source is about the singer and only mentions the band as a project with which he used to be involved - so would fail WP:INHERITED even if he had his own Wikipedia article as a solo artiste. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. 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]

AfDs for this article:

(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) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas Varsity Private School[edit]

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

This school went online only as of 2011 per its Facebook page. The website is down and there is no 3rd party evidence that the school even exists. Billhpike (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I do disagree with the nominator's claim that the school doesn't exist, I am only finding insignificant independent articles, which fails WP:GNG. EMachine03 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found several links to this school by another name: Veritas Varsity Virtual School. The address turns up a satellite view of a (nice) private residence. My belief is that this is a homeschooling cooperative. The headmaster (and founder) is a real estate operator who ran for Waco school board in 2010 [21]. With no coverage but lists, I'd say delete this SPA written and SPA-edited article. Rhadow (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSCHOOL ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From photographs posted on the Facebook page, it appears there may have been four students in 2010, then it went "virtual" in May 2011. The blog has stories of another trip later in 2011, then nothing. This school may have failed. In any case, not notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this school appears to exist only in someone's imagination. May have been an 'intended' project when the page was created. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of third-party coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked and it just seemed at one time this entity marketed themselves as a "virtual school" but I can't find evidence it actually operated. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 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) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larisa Muzikante[edit]

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

Asserts significance, but non notable. Cannot find RS to show meeting GNG. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being a relative of someone with a red link falls far from meeting GNG: and I can't find anything to back up the claim about her sports prowess, but even if RS's can be found for this, it probably belongs at Riga United FC#Riga United Ladies team rather than in a standalone article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I've ever seen a case of completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY then this is it, so many red flags here! Govvy (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited, and even if it was at the age of 15 the subject of the article fails WP:TOOSOON so horribly and also comes up well short when it comes to WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CipherShed[edit]

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

Non-Notable software. Project did not have any release post the preview release Project has been apparently abandoned since 2016 Hagennos (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. cnzx (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable Dbsseven (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG -- I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The ONLY independent source that appears reliable that provides some coverage of the subject I could find: link. Coverage from PC Magazine but appears to just be a listing written by the developer (?), not independent coverage. Even though the project appears to have been abandoned, if significant coverage in reliable sources can be found I have no problem keeping this article (notability is not temporary). Jujutacular (talk) 14:57, 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) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roida Rzayeva[edit]

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

Nicely presented WP:RESUME of a young associate professor who does not appear in SCOPUS, written by three accounts with only one other article between them. No indication of passing WP:PROF, all references appear to be to her own work. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing significant showing on Google: Wikipedia is not Linkedin ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only three GS citations to her work so fails WP:Prof#C1. I can't see anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Grad students often have about this much output on publications. No secondary references are included in the article as only the subject's own publications were used as references for the Selected Publications section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 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) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Ebba[edit]

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

non-notable individual, orphaned article. Fails WP:CELEBRITY Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:CELEBRITY. The "references" are largely arbitrary links with no clear relation to the subject or any material in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 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. Sandstein 21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Energy products[edit]

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

A vague term for 'products that give the consumer a burst of energy', possibly a WP:NEO. No substantial content that can't be found on the Energy Drinks page. Created by what was likely a COI account and repeatedly edited to include different editors' product of choice. References are only lists of how much caffeine some energy drinks and gums contain. LynxTufts (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a WP:NEO. I expected this article to be about equipment used in the Energy technology sector. Indeed, all Google searches point in that direction, too. This page fails to justify the inclusion of sweets/candy as so-called energy products. It adds absolutely nothing to what is already contained in Energy drinks or in List of energy drinks. I feel that a redirect to either page would not be helpful, and would simply confuse many users. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:15, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sliesarenko Serhii Volodymyrovych[edit]

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

This is the 5th time this article has been created (and each time deleted). Normally I would allow a bit of time to fix an article, before AFDing, but this has been created in one form or another since the 4th of November 2017, and no attempt has been made to fix the issues that got it deleted the last time (or 3). Not notable and probably promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. @Slatersteven: is there any particular reason this wasn't tagged for CSD instead of AfD? cnzx (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just dislike speedy deletion (even in blatant cases like this as I like to discus any issue. I am still getting my patrolling legsSlatersteven (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a promotional article on a plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt. This is blatant promotion against WP:PROMO. Once you removed the puffery and unsourced claims, what will remain is stub of non notable professor –Ammarpad (talk) 14:23, 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) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stereoside[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD and no reason was given. non-notable band. One song reached No. 48 on the Billboard Heatseekers chart meaning No. 148 overall (in 2010) http://www.billboard.com/music/stereoside/chart-history/heatseekers-albums/song/664601 . That certainly did not garner any media for the band and they fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per 1st nomination, the main argument for keep was based this subject having a track appear for one week at #48 on the Billboard Heatseeker chart. It is not an important source for gauging a recording’s accomplishment. The chart exists primarily for the benefit of retailer’s to track new or previously unsuccessful artists and their relative position to actually charting on Billboard’s top 100, based on sales or airplay. As low of a placement as #48 is not much of an accomplishment; it could simply reflect pre-orders, and when such a release disappears after one week, that is usually the case. (FWIW, Walter Görlitz (talk), it’s doesn’t even translate into #148, as there may be non-qualifying “heatseeking” artist in the top 200 who chart higher.) In fact, #48 is so dubious in importance that in the years since this subject’s appearance, Billboard has stopped tracking anything beyond #25. Otherwise, my google search finds the subject covered in minor music media and blogs, trivial promotional, but nothing significant that distinguishes the band from run-of-the-mill existence. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article as pointed out above. Trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:35, 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) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Goring[edit]

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

Other than a single blurb in a 2014 Raw Story article about his 2007 documentary, I can find zero about this person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to show him as a notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 18:24, 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) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College's EagleMUNC[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be an article on one specific model UN conference, this seems unjustifiably narrow in coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. No secondary coverage, and none would be expected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not even a merge into Boston College is warranted. The links would be fine at Model United Nations, but nothing else is worth keeping. South Nashua (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:20, 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. Sandstein 21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Model United Nations[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no secondary references in article and none found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 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. No redirect target suggested in the discussion. Any subsequent redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European International Model United Nations[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. No opinion on creating a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 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) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North American Model United Nations (NAMUN)[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 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. Any subsequent redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haarlem Model United Nations Organisation[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Stedelijk Gymnasium Haarlem Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient notability. Natureium (talk) 02:42, 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. No redirect target suggested in the discussion. Sandstein 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haarlem Model United Nations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Stedelijk Gymnasium Haarlem Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 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. No redirect target suggested in the discussion. Sandstein 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William & Mary High School Model United Nations Conference[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I specifically don't support a redirect to College of William & Mary; if there's a better target I'm neutral. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete notability. we don't need an article for all of these. Natureium (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not redirect. From titles they look like redirect material but reading both articles will show otherwise. — Ammarpad (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No redirect target suggested. Sandstein 21:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarbayev University Model United Nations[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to university page. Störm (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect after deletion per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No need to redirect to a sub-string. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost nothing about it in RS; looks like promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 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. Sandstein 21:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait International Model United Nations (KIMUN)[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this is even less notable than most of these conferences. power~enwiki (π, ν)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JHUMUNC[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. Only sourced are from inside John Hopkins. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article is under CSDA7 at the moment, but I think it will be declined. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails notability. Natureium (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is long past time we made a minimum requirement that all articles have at least one listed source to even be created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 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. Sandstein 21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best Delegate[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. Had to sort through many instances of the phrase being used, and it is a general distinction among model UNs and other such contests. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic is a website about Model UN conferences. WP:NWEB is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, next to no information at all can be found about the subject of the article in question.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:18, 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 merge to Model Congress. Now we're just waiting for Model United States Senate Armed Services Committee. Sandstein 21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Model United States Senate[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No mentions in RS L3X1 (distænt write) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Model Congress this is about a concept, not any individual event. It seems sufficiently different from Model UN that a merge isn't appropriate. Model Congress is basically the same concept, and seems a reasonable merge target. There's enough coverage to show that multiple events of this type exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Model Congress, per power~enwiki. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above, a merge with Model Congress is acceptable as the US Senate is a part of the US Congress.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:52, 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. Sandstein 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHA Phase VIII[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ATD is to redirect to DHA Karachi. Störm (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This isn't a model UN conference, re-listing so it's not in the middle of that list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: This stub (see WP:STUB) has one source, and there's no significant coverage about the topic. maybe this article could be cleaned up and added to one of the articles listed at DHA under the organizations heading. Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neroon Kot Model United Nations[edit]

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

No coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No mentions in RS L3X1 (distænt write) 16:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is little if any evidence that these various local conferences are ever notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 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) 17:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Model United Nations[edit]

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

No coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG per nom. Capitals00 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I can find a few sources for MUN conferences in Hyderabad, but none for this specific event. I suspect that this event would meet the inclusion criteria if we could find non-English sources, but as it stands the subject of the article does not meet our definition of notable. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. Natureium (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More or less the same as the above, article does not pass general notability criteria for events.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:44, 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) 17:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaitoon Group[edit]

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

Not much coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easily fails WP:ORG. No extensive coverage in independent sources. Ajf773 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Author has admitted on my talk page that the guy is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nandikolla Gopala Rao[edit]

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

Quite possibly notable but no evidence of any sort is offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I consider the rationale to be lame and unconvincing. Page author did title as Last name, First, which was why very little was coming up. ~~Will move.~~ L3X1 (distænt write) 17:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- RHaworth Would you please move the page to it's proper title Gopala Rao Nandikolla? Thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous - far more hits for "Nandikolla Gopala Rao". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The justification you offer is not a satisfactory rationale for deletion -- notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article. However, after a quick search, I'm leaning towards deletion and a merge/redirect to blurb within a more general article. cnzx (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The (missing) deletion rationale should be: lack of notability based on there being no reliable sources in the article, and none to be found online.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Taillard[edit]

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

Near-certain autobiography with some sockpuppetry concerns. SCOPUS gives an h-index of 1, which is an abject fail of WP:PROF. Sources rarely reach the level of even a proper namecheck, in some cases just being lists of people who did a thing. Bluntly, this is spam. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. An academic CV with some odd highlights (he wanted to be a body piercer?), but not especially distinguished. --Calton | Talk 16:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's written quite a few books, including (the article says) five academic books, but although they exist they seem to have vanished into the academic void, with zero reviews. Which is very weird, for an academic book, and a sign that he isn't having much impact. Regardless, we don't have evidence for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and without evidence we can't keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Academic publishing is moving to a different platform in which publishers use subscription-based download services, such as SpringerLink. If you look at Taillard's books based on downloads, you'll see even his earliest books are still getting consistent attention. This is a service you can use to confirm that. ^[1]

You can also use Academia.com to note that his name has been specifically referenced in 551 papers: ^[2]

It is also worth noting that the importance of the work he's done is attracting the attention of various podcasts, from people who find his work extremely important: ^[3]

It is without doubt that he is a professor, as he works at Central Michigan University, and has contributed more greatly to academia than most professors through his writings. ^[4]

BullMooseRevival (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — BullMooseRevival (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You can also use Academia.com to note that his name has been specifically referenced in 551 papers - This suggests otherwise. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. Notability is not judged on downloads but on citations, which here are tiny: WP:Too soon. Does the creator of the BLP have any connection with its subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe 281 WorldCat entries ^[1] plus 551 papers referencing BLP through Academia.edu is pretty significant, but not huge. Other editors and administrators have referred to the BLP as being right on the edge of notability. It seems prudent to leave the page intact, since any future works can only further increase notability, rather than decrease it. BullMooseRevival (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Michael+Taillard

Delete I agree with David Eppstein's assessment that we don't have the evidence for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Download counts are not an indication of influence, nor should they be. Time and time again, I've been researching some obscure point and downloaded a dozen papers in the process, none of which had what I needed. There's no way to tell how many of the downloaded copies were discarded immediately after (nor how many hits were from automated scraping, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As per WP:AUTHOR, criteria states that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Taillard has written works that are considered revolutionary to military strategy. This is evidenced by the books Economics and Modern Warfare (plus the coming 2nd edition), Psychology and Modern Warfare, and Analytics and Modern Warfare. There are also citations present in the BLP that provide irrefutable evidence of being invited to speak on this matter at universities (specifically, Madonna University), and on podcasts. Within an interview in the award winning movie Dead Man Working, as well as the books themselves, it is confirmed that he was a consultant on these same topics with US Strategic Command as the invitation of Vice Admiral Cecil Haney in 2011, and in Washington DC at the Chief of Staff of the Army's Strategic Studies Group at the invitation of Colonel Edmund Degen. The National Writer's Series is publishing an author's profile based on these books on Dec. 01, 2017. This all demonstrates a range of very significant influence in the field of strategic studies that range across the academic, military, and literary industries for which there has been ongoing recognition for the last 7 years. As per Academia.edu, his works have been cited 551 times in scholarly papers, and they are read significantly more frequently than books of similar topics according to BookMetrix. That is solid proof of WP:AUTHOR for the developments of new concepts and theories in the field of strategic studies. If anything, the biggest violation in the Wikipedia page is that it fails to give proper emphasis to his contributions to this field of work. Reorganizing the article a bit to focus on his contributions and work in strategic studies would help give the article a more appropriate scope. He was working with top US military officers across the nation to develop new methods of strategy, and then wrote three books about it which are popular enough that the publisher is starting with 2nd editions, and has spoken to universities, podcasts, and authors' groups. If that doesn't make someone notable within the field of strategic studies, nothing does - this guy is at the top of the field within a somewhat niche but very important area of expertise. That most definitely fits the criteria for a notable author as per Wikipedia guidelines. That is irrefutable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BullMooseRevival (talk • contribs) 06:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The publishers he has worked with includes some of the most influential names in the industry. Wiley, Springer, Macmillan are all very selective and distinguished. I would bet each person here has heard of Corporate Finance for Dummies, themselves. I know I have seen it at my local bookstores and library. Nobody cites a Dummies book, but this one is a staple for college students. If he is good enough for the biggest names in the industry and known worldwide, then that is the very definition of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.30.9 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — 97.91.30.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The mere existence of a book, or of any other scholarly publication, is not itself evidence of notability, even if the work was published by a reputable publisher. WP:PROF#C1 states, "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Moreover, any claim that a "person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept" must be supported "by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question" which establish that the new concept is indeed significant. Pointing back to the books themselves, as this article repeatedly does, is not sufficient. Moreover, these secondary sources must themselves be reliable, which rules out the vast majority of podcasts, blogs, social media posts, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP address 97.91.30.9 geolocates to Traverse City, Michigan, where Central Michigan University has facilities, and which is also the address given in Michael Taillard's Academia.edu profile and the original version of this article. XOR'easter (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you'll find a lot of neurologists in Ann Arbor who are associated with University of Michigan, a lot of editors in New York who work for major publishers and their imprints, and a lot of computer programmers along the US West Coast. Your big revelation is that specific industries and career-types tend to cluster geographically? Congrats, you just discovered a concept called economies of agglomeration, which has been around since at least the ancient civilizations. Tell me, why is it that the bulk of everything you do on Wikipedia is dedicated in some way to the deletion of pages? Why not give some thought into what would improve upon the page, instead? BullMooseRevival (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Yurken:@David Eppstein:@XOR'easter: A lot of the confusion seems to be stemming from the way the article was written. There's far too much emphasis on points for which the person is not notable and not enough emphasis given to why the person is notable. Let me explain. Notability is established under WP:AUTHOR as described in previous comments. The works fall directly under the direct criteria, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." The work has been of consistent interest to military, university, and public audiences for 7 years, and continues to be of interest. Strategic studies is a niche topic, but Taillard is clearly notable within it, as previously demonstrated. In addition, as someone pointed-out, nobody actually cites a Dummies book because they offer intro material that is generally not acceptable for academic citations, but everyone has heard of Corporate Finance for Dummies because it's in universities around the world. That being said, I would agree that the article fails to emphasize the reason for author notability. Instead of deleting it entirely, it seems prudent to rewrite it to narrow the scope of its content. The entire section on political views could be deleted, and the subsection on military reformation given its own section and expanded to include more details on that matter. Discussions on being a professor should be more of a side-note than a feature, and more details offered on his role in the development of his professional field. Early life could be deleted, although educational history might be prudent to the article. Would you agree that this makes sense? BullMooseRevival (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The subject has been very productive as of late; but notability is based on recognition, which usually takes some time. The article was created too early. He could become notable in the future; in fact, this may be likely. But not yet.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion, we need to proactively remove examples of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Yurken: And, as demonstrated by citations to BookMetrix, Worldcat, and Academia.edu, Taillard is at the forefront of literature in that field due to his contributions of entirely new theory. That is the definition of notability under a clause of WP:AUTHOR. The fact that these contributions are sought by military and academia proves applied demand due to these books. There is nothing too early about this - it has already reached top military brass, including an appearance to the Naval War College in Rhode Island next month. Now, the only ones providing actual citations, referencing specific Wiki policy, or offering logic beyond "I disapprove" have been those saying keep the article. Unless you can offer a more substantial argument, then those who want the page deleted are merely relying on a majority vote, which it has already been stated does not matter. Can anyone offer a quality reason to delete this page other than not liking it? As of now, all empirical evidence supports keeping it under WP:AUTHOR. Simply disliking that fact is not grounds for deletion according to Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.30.9 (talk • contribs) — 97.91.30.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Question for BullMooseRevival. Do you have any connection with the subject of this BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: We both specialized in similar fields, but we're not friends or anything. We met one time for a Congressional conference on fiscal policy reform in Washington DC which is where he told me about his work on strategic economics, and I've been following his books published by Palgrave Macmillan ever since. Clearly I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the direction he's taking the field. BullMooseRevival (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this explanations. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: No problem. In light of the evidence that the subject of the LPB is purchased and read more frequently than other books in the same field, does this change your mind on the matter? Based on your own criteria of citations, 551 may not compared to legendary names like Adam Smith, but neither is it insignificant. The article was written very generically, and it seems like a rewrite would be the appropriate course of action, rather than deletion. Would you agree? BullMooseRevival (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, failing WP:PROF. This is one of the many articles that was made without having enough knowledge about reliable sources. Some sources like Economics and Modern Warfare: The Invisible Fist of the Market are created by the subject. And number of other sources[22] are just unreliable. Excelse (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the comments of BullMooseRevival. I agree that the article needs a rewrite. I would post a 'reads like a CV' template on it. But I think the distinction between citations and downloads (one being good and useful, the other being worthless) is wrongheaded. The question is whether people are using his material, which, clearly, they are. I agree that he qualifies for Academic Person as a leader in his field. The extensive commentary showing that the Subject, in the commentator's view, doess not meet the Criterion C1, may be true, but may also be the fault of the editors of the article, who don't know about the guidelines for notability of academics, and therefore do not frame their content appropriately. But there are eight other Criteria, and also the statement " Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." Commentators may well be raising the bar far too high. Again, I think the article needs a template or two to encourage better style and better documentation, with attention to WP:NPROF. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicedomino: Looking at your page, it seems like you have a lot of experience. Would you mind very much assisting in revising the article? BullMooseRevival (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- "There are eight other criteria", true. But he fails all of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is established under WP:AUTHOR. The works fall directly under 2 criteria: 1: "The person is regarded as an important figure" and 2: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." As previously noted, people are buying, reading, and requesting more of the same content because of this. This, in fact, establishes notability under WP:NPROF under criteria 7, "7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Ample citations have been provided of this. The failure in the article is that it was poorly designed and written, something which a group of experienced editors should be able to resolve quite easily. In fact, there was even mention of templates? That is the point, right? To improve articles instead of spending endless days judging whether they should be deleted based upon their original form? BullMooseRevival (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BullMooseRevival, you keep saying that "the person is regarded as important figure" is proven by people reading/buying his stuff, but this is a very weak argument. The way Wikipedia works, is that we summarize what reliable sources say. That is the epistemology of this place, and the way the dilemma of there being no named authors is resolved (authors of content are not authoritative; sources are authoritative. If there were say a NYT profile, a WSJ profile, an Economist profile, all saying how important he is, it would be unlikely that this article would have been nominated for deletion. This whole piece is trying to sell, sell SELL how important he is, and by trying so hard it fails to be encyclopedic. You are fairly new here and it is clear that you don't understand this stuff yet. What I suggest is that you agree to draftify this article, and tone it down, use more high quality secondary sources that are about him (not by him), and then put it through WP:AFC. What do you think about that? Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally honest, I was hoping an editor with more experience might help with editing. It sounds like you agree that rewriting the article is the best course of action. I've asked two very experienced editors to assist in that process in lieu of taking the page down. Once the article is less generic and really just focuses more on the significant contributions the LPB subject has made, then there shouldn't be any question. On the page there are citations to sources which demonstrate he has been invited to speak at universities, conferences, military agencies, podcasts, and writer's groups on his specific areas of contribution, and that his books are popular enough that the publishers are now doing 2nd editions. That definitely demonstrates "significant impact" based on "originating a significant new theory", which inherently makes him "an important figure." Ok, for the sake of argument, you disagree with "important figure", there are still 2 other criteria which fits perfectly. You mentioned news sources of global distribution - The Economist does profiles on people like Kofi Annan, Bloomberg does profiles on people like Donald Trump, so if you are setting the bar at "World Leaders" as your judgment of notability, you may as well delete 99% of the people on Wikipedia right now. Instead, let's take the sensible path and fix-up the article so that it is more in-line with other people who are notable yet not so notable that they decide world affairs at the United Nations. BullMooseRevival (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not sound to me like Jytdog thinks the article should be kept and rewritten. It sounds like he thinks the article should be taken down unless/until someone with a better understanding of how notability works on Wikipedia rewrites it based on independent reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: So, we are in agreement that the problem is not one of notability? That the problem is the article needs to be rewritten? Regardless of whether you would take the article down first or not, the issue at hand is that the article was poorly designed in its original incarnation? Are you also in agreement with this assessment of the current state of things?

BullMooseRevival, You have repeated yourself. I heard you the first few times you said this stuff. Please hear me (and everybody else) when we say that we are hearing your argument and it is not a good one, here in Wikipedia.

This article will very likely be deleted if this discussion continues. You can save yourself and everybody else trouble if you will consent to moving this out of "mainspace" (the Wikipedia that everyone reads) and into "draft space" (that is what "draftifying" means -- unpublishing it, but keeping it as a working draft elsewhere in Wikipedia -- it would be at Draft:Michael Taillard), to remove the hard selling and if there are independent sources that establish the stuff you are saying about him, rewrite this article based on those sources. And once it is done, submit the draft for review by independent editors (that is what happens in the "articles for creation" process), after which it would be published. This page in anything like its current form should not be published in Wikipedia. There is too much "selling". Will you agree to this? Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, I am relatively new. I've only made basic contributions and have learned the "code" by watching others use it. So, when I say I cannot agree to that, I am not being argumentative, I literally mean I cannot agree because I don't really know what you're talking about. Seriously, I've made contributions to existing pages for years with no problem, but it wasn't until attempting to make a new page that I learned just how complicated Wikipedia can be. That's really my biggest concern with your suggestion - the page will be "draftified" and then I won't know what to do from there and the whole thing will just get lost in the shuffle. That's the biggest reason I wanted to leave the page available while it gets worked-on, because at least then I still know what I'm doing. Doing it your way delves into territory I'm not familiar with. Is there some middle ground we can find in which a bit of assistance is offered to walk through this? To be quite honest, I'd really like to see someone experienced work on the page so I can see what they're doing and learn from it and become a better editor, myself. What do you think? Is there somewhat we can do it your way but get some kind of assistance? BullMooseRevival (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the page is likely to be deleted. Draftify may not be an answer, because if a draft if left for too long without being edited it may be deleted. Wikipedia does not provide a cloud storage service. The creator might do better to copy the source code onto his own computer where it can be worked on securely. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Beg to differ. What I see so far is NO consensus. There is a disagreement as to whether a criterion has been met. And alternatives to deletion have been proposed (improving the article already posted, moving the article to Drafting). Please avoid trying to strongarm the commentators into a false appearance of consensus. --Vicedomino (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Fuck it. I'm just going to delete the page. I can't believe I've wasted as much time as I have even trying to contribute. You win - I don't care enough to do this anymore. BullMooseRevival (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you changing your vote to Delete then? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I'm changing my vote to "Do whatever you want, just keep me out of it." I blanked the page because I don't know how to delete it outright, and I don't want my work associated with this at all, anymore. If someone wants the article back, they can write it, themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BullMooseRevival (talk • contribs) 01:35, 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. Sandstein 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok Publications[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. The best source provided here is a Reddit thread used to demonstrate that a book from this publishing house won a non-notable award. No better sources found. Creator's username suggests COI. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG .Started in 2013 with 5 employees is still a upcoming company not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:53, 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. Sandstein 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Skorkowsky[edit]

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

Little-known author with no reliable source backing up article. Searching for sources hasn't turned up anything better. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Creator's username suggests COI. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews from reliable sources (nothing from 1st 100 ghits of a search under "Seth Skorkowsky book reviews"), although some of his books are held by quite a few libraries ie. Mountain of daggers 68 libraries, Hounacier 72 libraries surprising that there are not even "trade" reviews available eg. nothing at Kirkus Reviews or Publishers Weekly. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 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. Sandstein 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epico and Hunico[edit]

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

This was a shortlived team without much notability. Their sole claim to fame was a two week run on WWE programming. All worthwhile information here is already covered in Sin Cara and Epico Colón, so this article is superfluous. Feedback 12:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete TOOSOON, GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Should have been on the individual articles. Not worthy of stand alone article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah FCW teaming had low viewable, main roster run was very short starship.paint ~ KO 01:31, 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. Sandstein 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadick Assah[edit]

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

Declined PROD. No indication of notability. Most of the sources cited in the article are either to his own blog, or articles about other people he is associated with that mention him in passing. The two exceptions are these regurgitated press releases [23][24], which are far from significant coverage. I haven't been able to find any additional sources that would amount to a pass of the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This page has been killed once through speedy deletion, once through Prod, and as the nominator describes above, deserves deletion again. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is of a notable person event promoter in Ghana. As said earlier on, the article is being written and edits, citings are ongoing. Please don't bite :) Kwamevaughan (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamevaughan: Notability is a property of the subject rather than article itself, so no amount of editing will make him notable. That's why I find it better (less bitey) to settle the matter quickly – rather than have you waste your time on something that isn't a viable encyclopaedic subject. If Assah is notable then we can keep the article, but you will have to show that he has been written about in detail (not just passing mentions) by multiple reliable sources that have no connection to him. I haven't been able to find any evidence of that.

I am struck by the coincidence that you've decided to write this article just weeks after Assah himself apparently tried and failed to do so. Do you have a conflict of interest in relation to this article? – Joe (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles need to be based on reliable sources about the subject, which we lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- exclusively a WP:PROMO article on a subject of questionable notability, who is presented as "significant" promoter. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; the awards are not significant and well known. Has all appearances of being a undisclosed paid work; the article's history indicates that it was started as "AfC" but then the creator moved it into mainspace themselves: [25]. Their vote at this discussion is not convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tasso Bouyessis[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. There's insufficient coverage in independent sources. Most references are primary or not independent from the subject. Boneymau (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at the level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia or indeed in any encyclopedia. SunChaser (talk) 09:29, 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. Fails GNG, no sources provided to say otherwise. Opinions expressed by editors with little activity or activity after a long period of dormancy (which accounts for nearly all "keep" votes in this discussion) are given reduced weight because they are likely to be unfamiliar with the current standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 20:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Dwight[edit]

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

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

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

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

While a Google search on Ron Dwight shows that this person definitely existed, I can find no coverage in any reliable sources, even in the computing press where you'd expect at the very least a few obituaries. If he'd written WinRAR he'd have a case for notability-by-association, but it's fairly clear that he was just someone who owned the distribution rights in some territories, not the actual developer. None of the three sources are remotely appropriate for use in Wikipedia, and the ELs are either broken or to unreliable websites so can't take their place. ‑ Iridescent 17:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep He has been an influential organiser of the FidoNet community, especially in Europe. I can ask around (@Joho68: @Bcw142: @Maury Markowitz: @Tom.jennings:) for a few opinions to help this discussion. ;-) --grin ✎ 13:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Definitely keep - the fact that he was active with WinRAR is inferior to the role he played in FidoNet Germany. As the Zone Coordinator for Europe, he forcefully re-structured and regionalized the whole German FidoNet which he was equally loved and hated for. Looking at the node- and pointlists of that time you can see that FidoNet in Germany was a huge community these days and it can be said that he and the consequences of his actions were a ubiquitous topic in all administrational discussions. --ius ✎ 22:00, 16 November 2017 (CET) — ius (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Definitely keep - Ron Dwight's impact on the European part of FidoNet scene was huge. --Joho68 ✎ 22:23, 16 November 2017 (CET) — Joho68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Joho68 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

keep I was part of the FidoNet as the time as Ron was involved. --Warpjogi ✎, 14:38, 18. November 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — Warpjogi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep During the heyday of FidoNet Ron was one of the defining figures on how the FidoNet worked in Europe, and rather controversial figure as his opinions were strong, and he wasn't afraid to voice them Punkki (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC) — Punkki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I had originally gone to close this as a keep, but then certain things were pointed out to me, and at a second look this discussion does smell sharply of ~~WP:SOCK~~vote-stacking - note the SPAs and identical signatures. I'm going to reopen and procedurally relist this accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you have chosen to assume bad faith instead of communicating. I am extremely disappointed. I would kindly ask you to reconsider what you have done, and revert your actions here, if you agree. The details have been written on my talk page, responding your notice. If you have questions to me: ask them. Communicate. --grin ✎ 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a difference between 'bad faith' and 'caution'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - all the opinions can be read above. I don't think it'd be reasonable to ask people repeat it here again. Mine, too. (A sidenote: guys, you could expand the Fidonet part in the article, I haven't been involved in the German part too much.) --grin ✎ 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of WP:GNG here, no independent third party sources to establish notability. The prevalence of WP:SPA accounts all supporting "keep" above while not providing any refs is a concern, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of your points (spa,refs) have been fixed since. --grin ✎ 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No they haven't, still no independent sources to show notability. Also you can't use unpublished emails as a source for encyclopedia articles. - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources in the article's references or external links. I searched Google books, the web and news and found no significant coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (Independent of the subject of the article. All sources were independent of the subject, as far as I know. --grin ✎ 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL - no references cited to establish notability or any indication they exist. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nothing found of any interest in a search and seeing the lack of new sources brought froward by the highly partisan arguments from the stacked voters some of whom have woken up after 7 years of inactivity, I doubt that any will pop up now. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the edit summary for the creation of this page is "in memorian [sic] ron" Domdeparis (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - This is not fair. You expect people to turn up while you guys expect me not to notify them. There is no guideline that people who edit wikipedia twice in a millenia (or, actually, not ever) cannot participate in AfD, nor that opinions of people not checking back soon enough wouldn't matter. Also since it has been proven - as far as I see, but I'm pretty open to run checkuser against me if anyone needs that way of satisfaction - that all the people up there are real, separate and possessing his/her own opinion, I would really appreciate if you would not ignore their opinion. I already have inserted (some) sources (which possibly could have improved upon); I have already told why sources are hard to find; already told why the person is notable (while I accept that he's on the lower bound of the notability scale for people not being familar with the network and general networking history, still pretty relevant in the course of the shaping if FidoNet which have lead to internet implementation later by the same persons). Also some of you are strongly advised to read WP:APPNOTE, which has been followed in this case (and has been ignored by the labeling above!), an remove canvassing marks from the people. Thanks. --grin ✎ 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the points about notability have been addressed. When we look at the sources we judge whether they meet WP:GNG standards and these don't. I know nothing about fidonet or this person but I don't need to to see whether the sources are sufficient. Which of the sources are independent and in depth coverage in reliable?Domdeparis (talk) 16:24, 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. Sandstein 12:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tumi Masemola[edit]

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

Non notable unsourced promotional article. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and my search revealed no sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, I moved it back to draft for the newbie to work on it to avoid deletion but he is adamant in reverting it back to mainspace reluctant to use AFC at all. — Ammarpad (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so the Author who never edited any other article (as of 09:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)) has just told me on my TP that it is a "client work" and "all info was provided by her" — Ammarpad (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete besides being promotional, there is just no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to promote themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Henshaw[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2015. The cited sources are either not reliable, or are mere namechecks. Three self-released EPs, no chart positions. Deleted twice before by AfD. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete, a little reluctantly, and presumably salt, given the history of this article. The Guardian article doesn't compare Henshaw to Al Green, Smokey Robinson, etc. – what it says is that Henshaw's style of singing reminds you that those artists didn't sing at the top of their lungs either... which isn't the same as comparing him to them. The LinkedIn references look interesting, until you realise it was more a case of Henshaw enterprisingly using LinkedIn to promote himself, rather than the company actively asking him to take part in an advertisement. Lots of references to prove he played gigs and festivals – well, he's a musician, that's his job, it doesn't make him any more notable than the hundreds of musicians gigging up and down the country. So the only notable sources are that he won an NME Breakthrough award and opened at the Lovebox festival in London, and that The Guardian profiled him – although it must be said that the newspaper's "new band of the week" spot wasn't exactly an exclusive club... Henshaw was no. 871 in a series of God-knows-how-many.

What's changed since 2015 is that in May 2016 Henshaw self-released another four-track EP. And what worries me now is that since that EP 18 months ago, there's been no sign of him – no updates to his official web page or social media (his Twitter account since then has simply been retweets), no news of new recordings or gigs... it appears that Henshaw has given up making music again, and that the Lovebox appearance may well be the highlight of his solo career. Which is a shame, but if that's the case, he doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as above, doesn't pass our music guidelines any more now than in 2010 or 2013 etc. Clearly his apex was putting in an appearance at the Lovebox 2010 festival, which does sound impressive at a glance, but note that according to the offical site there were over 200 acts that year and Henshaw didn't even warrant a mention on the poster, not even in the tiny print. In any case, 7 years later nothing came of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you remove the namedropping that dominated the lead you'll be left with one (interview) sources that merely confirms he's musician. Refs 7,8, and 9 reported about festivals per set, with passing mention. Likewise the remaining refs about tour here and there and self relating EPs. All these and lack of corroborating new sources shows he clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and lacks the significant coverage enough to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps in the future. — Ammarpad (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still has not reached a level to meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ubaidullah Bokhari[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2015. SCOPUS gives an h-index of 4. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF. I have pruned a number of predatory and junk journals from this resume. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scopus is the wrong tool for computer science (it ignores the conferences, where most of the publications are) but even in Google scholar his citation counts are too low, in a high-citation field, for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate a pass of WP:PROF, citation counts are low and there are no additional sources. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 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. Sandstein 12:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renad Zhdanov[edit]

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

Promotional article and likely COI (author name is a close match to the subject, and author has no other contributions). Appears to fail WP:PROF. SCOPUS gives an h-index of 12. Article is bogged down with references to everything the subject ever write, including a number of suspect journals. Any assertion of notability is backed only by primary sources, most of which are under the control of the subject. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GS h-index of 20 for this highly cited field is too low to pass WP:Prof#1. I have removed the vastly bloated bibliography. If the article is kept there is more that could go. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Nothing indicates this BLP passes WP:PROF or an "average professor". As always, the GS h-index is prone to overinflate citation counts, and the SCOPUS h-index of 12 is more realistic. This doesn't even pass the low bar of using citation count indices. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 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. Both "keep"s are by very new accounts, and very shallowly argued, whereas the "delete"s are by experienced contributors. Sandstein 21:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ardit Bido[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO the sources are essentially affiliated sources or sources that mention him in passing in articles about the national archives or simple appointment notices. Nothing of interest found in a WP:BEFORE search Domdeparis (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable second sources regarding him. The fact that they are focused on his role in the national archives is quite normal per WP:ANYBIO, as long as that is the source of his nitability.Gezimmemishaj (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Gezimmemishaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Please do keep in mind that even major media outlets in Albania are not represented in google news or other related search engines. As such, it would be biased to be based on them for understanding the notability of Albanian notable persons.Gezimmemishaj (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All BLP articles have to be sourced, I am not basing my deletion nomination solely on the lack of sources but as a national archive director it is unlikely that there will be in-depth coverage of this person. This is not the sort of public position that generates much coverage in any country that would go towards proving notability. So unless there are sources that prove his notability now then I don't believe that it is worth keeping the article in the hope that some will be found. Domdeparis (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that David Ferriero and Jeff James (public servant) notability comes precisely from their archives managing role. Both articles are less sourced than this one. And as I searched in google there are plenty of news articles regarding him probably every week. But, whatever, I do not care as it seems to be a bias against Albanians who are only notable in Albania (some days ago a page i created for the rector of the biggest university in albania was attacked for the same reasoning). The sources are plenty for this article so it is a string keep for me.Gezimmemishaj (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree with you about James and please feel free to nominate for deletion if you wish but Ferriero is a heavily sourced article and shows notability as per GNG. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as this is not a valid argument to use in a deletion debate. There is no bias against Albanians or any other nationality especially from my part. Please try and read WP:AGF and do not accuse me of bias without proof as this is a personal attack Domdeparis (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a personal attack. It is a bias of English Wikipedia against persons notable in countries where English is not spoken. The articles in Albanian are a depth coverage of his activities. The same as the rector that I wrote above. The fact that there is nothing in English does mean nothing.Gezimmemishaj (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is worthy to expand the article, and I added some material and plan to add more. Of course it is a noteworthy article, about a person who holds an important position and who is present in media in Albania frequently, as sources provide.Arditrada (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the frequency of the appearance of his name in media but the depth of coverage that is important. This is what is missing in this article. There are not enough in depth secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 07:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find the lack of independent sources disturbing. Astonishingly, an article written by a WP:SPA and supported by other WP:SPAs turns out to be more than a little promotional. I am shocked. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saoud al-Daweesh[edit]

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

Not a notable person. None of the sources discuss the subject in detail. Only passing mentions in connection to his arrest. Pontificalibus (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The so-called "crackdown" looks very much like an attempt to silence potential dissent or opposition, this may receive more coverage later but for now there's nothing on which to build a stand-alone biography. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olexandr Starodubtsev[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to absence of substantive independent sourcing. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think he definitely passes WP:GNG based on the coverage in Ukrainian language sources. However, the history of creating this page and the page about him in Ukrainian WP (and the way the page was written) looks like an obvious WP:COI issue. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2Trom News Group[edit]

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

All citations point back to sources owned by the same company director as 2Trom in an attempt to legitimise the page. Hope Not Hate have researched the site extensively following the revelation in one of 2Trom's outlets that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is now partnering with a charity. The "charity" is not registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales, but it is registered with Companies House, where the director is, once again, the director of 2Trom.^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspritch (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Archibald, Sarah (14 November 2017). "The curious tale of Stephen Lennon's "Charity" partnership". Hope not hate. Retrieved 14 November 2017.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 refs none establishing notability. Its just a small digital company. Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as next to no information is provided about the company in the sources cited. Possibly fails WP:TOOSOON, as one of the sources cited ([26]) refers to 2Trom as an "emerging news corporation."--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:50, 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. Sandstein 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafay Mall[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to get more generic and mundane than this subject. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaVere Redfield[edit]

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

Fails notability as written, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boaderline SINGLE EVENT with no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and merit an article — Ammarpad (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references --BelBivDov (talk) 21:06, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Praveen Nair[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely. Nearly G11-able promo-spam. Rubbish promotional-sourcing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either trivial, unreliable or affiliated. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.And, Sportsfan 1234, I see that you have got some liking for my nomination statements:)Winged Blades^Godric 10:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Redding[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And yes, ((db-spam)) covers this one. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie dust (narcotic)[edit]

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

Not to be confused with just "zombie", "zombie dust" seems to just be a neologism. The cited study doesn't use the words "zombie dust" and it's only ever mentioned in one article. Doesn't appear notable on its own. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to determine that this is a common name for any specific narcotic or narcotic mixture; it's just slang used in one article from 2001. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in a crack house one day. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carmun.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability concerns. The coverage is largely from university newspapers and is mostly "check out this new thing"; the coverage was not sustained and the site never turned into anything notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Boston.com isn't nothing, but generally seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. As a comment, the previous AfD is quite perplexing. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 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. Sandstein 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Society of the Washington Area[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. Elektricity (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete As far as I am aware this is merely one of several mosques in the area with little to make it stand out, and there's not much of a claim to notability in the article. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Has since been rewritten as a sort of dab page. Sandstein 21:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Johannesburg[edit]

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

A statistical concept without official definition or statistics (the only stats coming from now defunct looking4.co.za) Batternut (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council" of the late 1990s referred to an area that is now slightly smaller (ie not covering Midrand) than the current City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, somewhat contrary to the aims of this article. Batternut (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Batternut, hope you're doing well. I noticed that Greater Johannesburg is officially defined and delineated by the South African Government.[27][28] It has clearly defined TLC/TRC and district council codes. This seems a Keep to me per WP:GEOLAND, being a legally defined place. Perhaps you might not have seen these government sources; would you be able to consider withdrawing your nomination if these sources satisfy you? Warmly, Lourdes 03:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - thanks Lourdes for an interesting point: that "Greater Johannesburg" was a definition used only in the 1996 census, and by the transitional Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council (GJMC) during its brief existence from 1995 to 2000 (see Johannesburg#Government). If its notability rests on that definition it cannot be correct for the article to actually be about a different area, encompassing East Rand and West Rand. I would agree to a re-purposing the article to the 1996-2000 definition. The citation problem the article currently has could then be dealt with. Batternut (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batternut, thanks for the reply. I'm not an expert in the geography of South Africa. While you're mentioning that this definition was used only in the 1996 census, I have seen government links like this which refer to the Greater Johannesburg area as recent as August 2017. But I'll go by what you're saying, as long as you use reliable sourcing within the article. You can reposition the contents of the article to correctly represent what Greater Johannesburg encompassed (or encompasses). As the area has been recognized by the government, notability is established per WP:GEOLAND. I'll leave it to your discretion to modify the contents as such. If you would wish to consider withdrawing your nomination, then it would be good if you could leave a note at the top of this discussion for the closing editor. Warmly, Lourdes 14:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closer inspection of the 1996 census codes linked by Lourdes reveals that, with the inclusion of Midrand/Rabie Ridge/Ivory Park, that definition is conterminous with the current City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. Should we consider a redirect to that article to avoid duplication (ie a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK)? Batternut (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batternut, I'm not clear how my sources could make you reach the conclusion you are mentioning. If you could provide any reliable source that supports your inference, I'll be open to changing my view. The Department of Water Affairs, Republic of South Africa's 2011 report on water certification mentions Greater Johannesburg is a part of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (see page 17 of their 2011 report). A plain reading perhaps would suggest that the Municipality you suggest is much larger than the Greater Johannesburg area, but not the same. Like I said, if you have any sources that clearly show that these both are the same, then I'll change my !vote. Therefore, in my opinion, there are three options here for consideration:

We keep the article titled Greater Johannesburg and stick to exactly what the government and other reliable sources mention about Greater Johannesburg.
We keep the article but rename it to the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area". (The article says Greater Johannesburg is also knowns as "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area". There are innumerable recent reliable sources mentioning this area. For example, this government paper defining the area's provincial spatial development framework says, "[...] the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area [is] (the industrial heartland of South Africa, including Tshwane and the City of Johannesburg)". This book says, "Witwatersrand also denotes the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area, which spans the length of the gold-bearing reef.").
We redirect the article to your target, if you can provide sources that clarify that these two areas are the same.

If you can provide the sources, that would be wonderful; else, we stick to the first two options. Warmly, Lourdes 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - I'd love to find some output from the 1996 census online, but have so far failed. The conterminous region theory stems particularly from "Final-term report" (PDF). City of Johannesburg. 12 January 2007. p. 22, ch 1. (a citation I put into Johannesburg#Government recently). Page 22 describes absorbing the MLCs plus Midrand Modderfontein, but Kempton Park confuses me, it might have been split up, I've seen it mentioned in both Joburg and East Rand. Btw the book Lourdes mentioned cites Wikipedia so must be discounted. I'll get back here again very soon. Batternut (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

option 1 - the 1996 census TLC (Transitory Local Council) list provides a difficult snapshot to work with - it defined "Greater Johannesburg" in terms of the transitory MLC's that existed for only 5 years. Most government and other RS is about the "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area"/"Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council", which does provide some maps. The current City of Johannesburg MM is clearly a reforming of the GJMC with some boundary changes - indeed changes that take it closer to the 1996 TLC list, though not precisely. Other mostly non-official sources though have used the term "Greater Johannesburg" meaning the Rand / the Reef / Witwatersrand (in its widest sense).
option 2 - actually relatively few official mentions of "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area", only 16 for site:gov.za, compared with Durban about 65 or Cape Town about 641. All of the gov.za results I have seen are tangential, non-defining.
option 3 - the 1996 Census TLC list suggests some differences between the definition then and the current City of Jo'burg municipality. However, civic boundaries often vary over time without wikipedia having new articles for each version.

I think what this period saw was a slow-motion concretisation of definition of a new and wider metro to replace the old apartheid city. I see this five year period as the history of the birth of the current City of Johannesburg MM. Building a separate article (options 1) on "Greater Johannesburg" will amount largely to a summary of the history of current City of Johannesburg MM, probably with the addition of a selection of non-official interpretations along the lines of the wider Witwatersrand / PWV / most of Gauteng meanings, amounting to a rather unsatisfactory disambiguation page.

Btw, I think it would be best keep just a passing reference to GJMC in Johannesburg#Government, moving most GJMC stuff to City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality#History or possibly History of Johannesburg. Batternut (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I appreciate the time you've taken to analyze and research. Unfortunately, unless you are able to find reliable sources supporting the interpretations you're giving, these inferences should not be included on Wikipedia. You say: "All of the gov.za results I have seen are tangential, non-defining." The sources I've given above define the area of Greater Johannesburg precisely, providing district and region information. Your inference perhaps is also that the number of government sources mentioning "Greater Johannesburg" is less than the number of sources mentioning other areas. That's not a critical parameter; as long as multiple sources do legally define the area, which in this case they do. I respect your opinions above, but as there are no sources to support your interpretations, I would finally prefer sticking to the first two options I have provided above. Thanks again for the effort taken out in this discussion. It has been a learning experience. I hope to work with you on other articles too. Warmly, Lourdes 13:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us look closely at the sources you have provided:

1996 census TLC, DCcodes - a list transitional councils disbanded 4 years later.
this (SARS contacts) - non-defining, but Lists Greater Johannesburg area amongst other areas Gauteng South; East Rand; West Rand and Gauteng north (including Centurion and Pretoria), therefore pretty well constrains Greater Johannesburg to a space the shape of City of Johannesburg MM (OR of course).
DWA 2011 report - non-defining, though the one mention, "Greater Johannesburg : City of Johannesburg MM" on p18, merely suggestive of a relationship;
SPISYS - one mention, "Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area (the industrial heartland of South Africa, including Tshwane and the City of Johannesburg" hardly defining, and actually written by the "Dennis Moss Partnership", conflicts flatly with the others
This book - says "by Quelle Wikipedia", therefore cyclic ref, must ignore.

The TLC list is the only RS with any precision (so far...). As mentioned, definitions that were dropped by the next census. Do we really want a "Greater Johannesburg" article nailed to a transitional snapshot of boundaries used in 1996? Cities always change over time. Batternut (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cities may change over time but I took the time to go through Google Scholar and Google News sources. I realized that there are many academic and news reports post year 1998-99 that continue to refer to "Greater Johannesburg".[29] For example, this publication of LSE and University of Cape Town notes: "Greater Johannesburg is a city of about 3 million people but is part of a conurbation comprising a population of something closer to 8 million which includes...",[30] Many articles also have "Greater Johannesburg" in their titles, for example: "In-migration and Living Conditions of Young Adolescents in Greater Johannesburg, South Africa",[31] "The question of road traffic congestion and decongestion in the greater Johannesburg area",[32] "The impact of gated communities on spatial transformation in the Greater Johannesburg area",[33] etc. The Independent Online writes: "By comparison, the average in greater Johannesburg, comprising the City of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni metros...". Financial Times carried a feature in May 2017 titled: "Investing in Gauteng: Greater Johannesburg".[34] Political parties like ANC specifically refer to "Greater Johannesburg".[35] This 1999 book is titled "Historical Dictionary of Greater Johannesburg ".[36] The review of this book also addresses Greater Johannesburg.[37] What I'm trying to mention is that in scholarly sources, news reports, popular culture etc, the terminology of "Greater Johannesburg" has continued quite strongly. Add to this you have mentioned above that your inference that Greater Johannesburg area is the same as the municipality may be original research ("...City of Johannesburg MM (OR of course)". Further, a "municipality" is an administrative body, while a "region" is a geographic mass. Equating the two seems illogical. Then there is actually no other option but to keep the article. Thanks, Lourdes 01:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See #Sorry, but none. Batternut (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johannesburg; no opinion on if ((R from misnomer)) is appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Clearly a distinct geographic entity relative to the other Johannesburg pages mentioned here (overlapping, but distinct). A natural geographic term that is frequently used in sources (per Lourdes). A page discussing the region is appropriate. Lourdes' arguments are clear and seem valid. So far as I can see, Batternut's arguments seem to involve a lot of muddying of the water (eg, lots of detailed points that turn out to be wrong or irrelevant to the larger point) and dubious inferences. I don't have the patience of the Lourdes to go through and rebut in detail. Power-enwiki says redirect to Johannesburg, but offers no reasons. I'm agnostic about whether to add "Metropolitan Area" to the page title (discussed as an option by Lourdes). Either way, one name would be the page title (eg, Greater Johannesburg) and the other should be a redirect (eg, Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area). --Gpc62 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I said redirect because this is a two-paragraph article with no content that gives no indication this is a commonly-used term (the references barely use the term) and the Johannesburg article already discusses the full metropolitan area and not just the city proper. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but none of the links Lourdes found above seems to define an area called "Greater Johannesburg". Google news and scholar also find lots of hits for "Downtown Johannesburg" and "Central Johannesburg" (more news in fact). I don't think we particularly need articles on them. Redirects perhaps... Batternut (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Batternut, thanks for reworking the article. That's a gracious move. I haven't researched on Central Johannesburg or Downtown Johannesburg, but examples like Downtown Los Angeles or Central Los Angeles suggest that on a case by case basis, we can also consider separate articles for Central and Downtown Johannesburg. But that's a discussion which belongs to another page, not here. Thanks once more, Lourdes 07:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - in the spirit of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion I have reworked the article to what I consider verifiable. I remain unconvinced of its worth. Batternut (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At its best the article is just a disambiguation page, and one that has a clear primary target, and indeed no other real targets, so according to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, my vote (perhaps implicit as nominator) is redirect. Batternut (talk) 14:11, 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panjabi Hit Squad[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Razoo (company)[edit]

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

Largely self-referenced, the rest seem to be either non-notable sources or press releases. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when I accepted this article at AFC I thought the sourcing was a bit weak but seeing the size of the company and its history I was sure there were sources out there and it would survive an AFD. I had a quick look and found these [38], [39] where it is mentioned as being in the same league as Kickstart, GoFundMe and Indiegogo. There are other sources out there such as [40]. Domdeparis (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry, all the sourcing here doesn't pass the guidelines of WP:ORG or is excluded per WP:SPIP. Domdeparis was fine to accept this from AfC, the standard there is a 50% chance of survival at AfD, but unfortunately I think we have to go with delete here. The sourcing he showed above doesn't meet our standards: source 1 is a part of a list, which we consider routine coverage in corporate/company AfDs. Source 2 from Crux is sponsored content (i.e. an actual advertisement and not just a recycled press release). Source three is also a list, but on top of that it is from Mashable, which we don't consider a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability. Nothing in the article is independent and non-PR sourcing. Unfortunately, this company is not a notable subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. PR/marketing sources, pure WP:CORPSPAM. Please don't accept this type of spam in the future at AFC (ping User:Domdeparis). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for the advice Piotr but as Tony said there are a certain amount of articles that we accept that will not survive a deletion discussion. And just to put this into perspective my AFD stats stand at a success rate of 80.6% for 390 discussions and if you ignore the no consensus I am at 85.7%. Of those 390 I nominated 276 pages with a 78% deletion rate and ignoring the no consensus this goes up to 83.5% success rate, so I think I will continue to trust my own judgement. If you're interested in checking out your own stats here is the link https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/. Domdeparis (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bunch of primary sources and some unreliable websites. No sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:CORP — Ammarpad (talk) 10:08, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Les Martin[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage to meet GNG nor do I believe the writing of tie-in novels meet NAUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a two of his x-files books, he is a published author and should pass on WP:NAUTHOR. books on amazon. Govvy (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @User:Govvy, please explain which criterion of WP:NAUTHOR is met. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply @J04n:, He is a published author, hmm, have they gone and changed NAUTHOR again? You use to qualify if you have published works. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NAUTHOR and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as it stands literally has no sources. We require coverage. Being a novelisationist/writer of books that are part of a large media franchise, is not the type of thing that makes someone default notable, and unless the books spawn the media franchise, instead of being part of a system that has already started and they are spawned by popularity elsewhere, meaning that the authors are not the originators of most of the intelectual content, the people writing them are probably not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Early Music (Lachrymæ Antiquæ). Sandstein 21:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uleg-Khem[edit]

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

I couldn't find any sources to substantiate any claims to notability or that the song passes WP:NSONG. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to redirect to the Kronos Quartet album since it technically isn't their song. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to Tuvan throat singing? At the risk of being accused of philistinism, I'd imagine someone searching for this song (which I know a couple of the Tuvan performers/groups have recorded) would be less surprised at a redirect that way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Early_Music_(Lachrymæ_Antiquæ)#Track_listing where the subject is mentioned; not independently notable for a stand-alone article, but a plausible search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Early Music (Lachrymæ Antiquæ). This song fails WP:NSONG, but is part of that album. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:22, 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. Sandstein 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StackCommerce[edit]

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

No substantial references to show notability -- the Forbes article is essentially a press release, by a "contributor", which Forbes properly annotates as " Opinions expressed by Forbes commentators are their own" -- ditto for TechCrunch-- and everything else a notice. Accepted from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator. Are we to understand that "Accepted from AfC" is a reason for deletion? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is routine notices and WP:SPIP sources. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources: the company exists but have not accomplished anything significant just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Really there's no particular reason to relist a third time here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil McGuinness[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAFL and most likely fails WP:GNG, no references in article to establish notability and cannot find any other sources about him. Flickerd (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the moment, but open to changing my mind if sources can be provided. 200 games in the SANFL, even if they were all when it was a second-level competition, is a reasonable achievement and he could meet WP:NAFL criterion #3 if significant coverage in independent reliable sources can be demonstrated. I had a look but couldn't find anything easily myself. Someone might need access to the Adelaide Advertiser archives of the 1990s to really be sure – if someone can find a couple of decent length articles there primarily about McGuinness then I would be willing to change to keep. Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep >200 games, Premierships & a B&F indicates a significant career in the second level state league, 2 articles listed indicates GNG is likely, especially given how poorly the 1990s are covered online. The-Pope (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coment I was able to find a couple of early 2000s articles on Factiva and EBSCOhost that deal primarily with him. I suspect that if someone was to visit the newspaper archive at the State Library in Adelaide, they would find be able to find some coverage of his earlier career. Hack (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 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. Three users have advanced "keep" arguments, among whom only one has produced sources in support. A spot-check of those sources do not demonstrate clear-cut notability (one of them, for instance, appears to be a review of a book published by this club). Therefore, I see a consensus to delete. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis and Badminton Club of Reykjavik[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable badminton organization. This is the oldest badminton club in Iceland. Lack of GNG doesn't mean this article is non-notable. Stvbastian (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, lack of WP:GNG means the article is non-notable. Ifnord (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are around nine thousand results on Google for TBR (the short name for the club) on Morgunblaðið (the countries oldest national newspaper) website alone. Then you you have the possibility to search for both the full Icelandic and English name, and also expand the search to Fréttablaðið and RÚV websites who are the other two major national news organizations in the country. Just out of curiosity, did you do the proper procedure and "do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ((notability)) template" as is stated under the Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion? -- Dammit_steve (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable badminton organization. See also interwikis. 20+ national team titles in Iceland. Florentyna (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is certainly notable and meets WP:GNG as the biggest club in a country. Only that the article didn't get attention for long, but that doesn't strip it of notability per WP:NEXIST — Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If reliable sources exist, then why is nobody citing any? Old it may be, but if nobody comes up with actual sources then we have nothing to base an article on. Sandstein 21:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and User:Sandstein. As I mentioned above, with no claims to notability, the article fails WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not enough for something to be the oldest "something" - there must also be media sources covering the group to meet Wikipedia guidelines. I visited the Morgunblaðið site and searched for TBR [[41]], but the only coverage I can find appears to be match results. I also went to Fréttablaðið to search for TBR [[42]]. Same thing - just routine match results. This is what you'd see in the local news coverage of a local paper. What we'd like to see in order to demonstrate notability is in depth coverage of the group itself. If indeed it is the largest club in Iceland one would expect to see some coverage to that effect, and also some coverage outside the country in foreign publications. This article is so short now that there's no harm in deleting it - if any sources come up and anyone takes an interest, it can be recreated with more meat. It has been in this same sparse condition for almost 13 years. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are 2 refs, a facebook page and a link to the club website. Interested editors have had two weeks to source the article but have been unable to do so. Szzuk (talk)
Delete No surprises to me that the ((Unreferenced)) banner-template was removed at the same time as the two Ext links unacceptable as references were added in 2010. I've also considered WP:CCS when !voting delete.-Semperito (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated, it is a fairly old club so older sources could be difficult to find. For older Icelandic news, timarit.is is a good source. However, the search in older issues is not perfect (Looks like they automaticaly scanned the words in the papers, it doesn't always work as some letters are wrong). To complicate it a bit more, you also have to search for either the full Icelandic name (Tennis- og badmintonfélag Reykjavíkur) or the short version (TBR). Still, a 5 minutes search turned up some sources. Like this one from 1964 (Page 5 and 9). Another from 1964 (Starts on page 5, continues on page 8). From 1966. Here is one from 1999 -- Dammit_steve (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Sandstein. I am happy- keen, even- to be convinced that there are sources out there; but, as the feller says, in that case where are they? WP:OFFLINE, is, after all supplementary to WP:V, so we need the second before the first. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 11:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I actually did point to a few new sources above your answer and I've added them to the article. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems bizarre that we are wasting time debating - and trawling up little-more than passing historic mentions (one being a book-review of the club's primary-source publication) only by virtue of modern facilities - keeping something on En Wiki that does not appear on Is Wiki?. Those of you with Chrome may do better than me trying to copy/paste, then machine-translate, the scanned .pdf text. It all smacks of Law of Diminishing Returns.
If it's so important to some editors, instead of insisting on keeping as-is, think about redirect/merge - a few lines only without the infobox - to Reykjavík#Sports teams? This make more sense? This does not imply I've changed my 'delete' !vote.-Semperito (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oldest badminton club in Iceland -Selenemoon (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC) — Selenemoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the oldest badminton club of Iceland doesn't make the subject notable. Irrespective of its standing in the society, the subject has to pass WP:GNG to have an article here. Even WP:NEXIST says that suitable sources (suitable independent, reliable sources) must exist, which is not the case here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rutaba Yaqub[edit]

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

doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICIAN. two sources are not Reliable enough to be cited here. Saqib (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've since added a further two obviously reliable sources, which are not simply rehashes of the earlier material. The article in The Express Tribune is non-trivial (she is one of two artists discussed, although in less detail than the first). The second article from Public Radio International is about her reaction to the death of Junaid Jamshed, although the article title doesn't make that obvious. It obvious from the first line of the article however, which reads "Growing up, musician Rutaba Yaqub loved listening to Junaid Jamshed.". So that now makes four obviously reliable sources, although two of those four are about roughly the same thing (just with different details). So three different stories in four reliable sources, which are either websites of print media or public radio broadcasters. Miyagawa (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: I still think in-depth coverage on the subject is missing. also i don't see the subject meeting WP:MUSICBIO. --Saqib (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it meeting the very first criteria "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." There's now three/four references that meet that, which covers the "multiple" part. As for in-depth coverage, that isn't a requirement under Wikipedia:Notability (music). I've had a look, and the only mention of in depth coverage related to notability is for WP:INDEPTH, which is in relation to individual events, not biographies. The requirement there is "multiple", not in-depth. Miyagawa (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Miyagawa makes a good case for her passing MUSICBIO. this source also mentions that she will be released shortly on Patari Aslis. Patari is "Pakistan's largest audio streaming platform." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since no particular notability issues. Unclear why she was nominated. gidonb (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significantly discussed in two independent sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Saqib that the person has not been mentioned in enough independent sources, and the links are quite related, referring to the same details and information. Quantumavik (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "enough". Right now there's four that easily meet the reliable and independent source since they're all print newspapers or international radio organisations. One from The Express Tribune in 2013, two from Public Radio International in 2016 and one from The News International in 2017. Pick a number, and tell me where to find that number in the actual policies. Miyagawa (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just reverted a whole bunch of edits that Saqib made to the article, which removed sources and added unsourced material that hasn't been mentioned anywhere. Miyagawa (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at User_talk:Miyagawa#Rutaba_Yaqub. I expect you to respond. --Saqib (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO with mentions in a number of reliable, international sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does the nominator have connection with the article subject?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; coverage here: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] etc. Mar4d (talk) 09:49, 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. Sandstein 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Miz and Damien Mizdow[edit]

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

This article basically consists of a weekly recap for a six month angle that's sufficiently covered in both wrestlers' individual pages. The subject matter fails the notability criteria, and the article itself is guilty of fan cruft and content forking. Feedback 05:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is actually the second deletion discussion, after an AFD with little participation resulted in it being kept two years ago. Feedback 05:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I voted "Weak keep" two years ago but probably shouldn't have. There's not much here, just two paragraphs about the tag team and another (larger) paragraph about them feuding. Everything useful is already covered in the individual articles. Fails GNG, amongst the other issues Feedback points out.LM2000 (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 10:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete, I'd usually be all up for keeping tag team articles, but this one is super short lived, and is based on them splitting. Note - Even the template they are in as tag team champions lists other articles, and not this one. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Causal thinking[edit]

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

Part of a walled garden created back in 2011, and materially unchanged since then. Meandering WP:SYNTH made as part of a self-promotion effort. See also the AfDs for Random structure function, Bernoulli stochastics, Bernoulli space, Stochastic thinking, Stochastic prediction procedure, Stochastic measurement procedure, Quantification of randomness, Variability function and Ignorance space. It's less math-y than those, but they're all part of the same package. XOR'easter (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one seems less promotional than the others but that doesn't make its sophomoring maunderings (with citations used for effect rather than for content) any more palatable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 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) 02:33, 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 and redirect to Category:Voice actors. Sandstein 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of voice actors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One big unsourced ball of fandom listcruft. It has been tagged as badly sourced since 2010 and has gone through two AfDs in that time, without improvement. There is no useful value to this list (voice actors are commonplace and we have categories to list them). The detail in this list is excessive, as there is negligible sourcing. It certainly has no value beyond listing the actor names, as a category would do better.

I'm prompted to list this because of this edit, a persistent vandal today dumping another similar 3k block of unsourced, unverifiable BLP. Yet it's not actually any worse than what's here already. We can't polish this, so we should flush it. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Voice actors. I know it's cross-categorization, but that's a good way to deal with thousands of entries, and can apply WP:CATDEF as to who is really a voice actor and who just had a bit voice-over role in whatever, the latter of which is pretty much everyone who's been an actor. If you skim through Lists of actors, you'll see a good chunk of them as redirecting to categories. Maintaining a list of "well, what were they in?" is not useful. You get guest voices on the Simpsons from all sorts of celebs, and they're suddenly classified as voice actors? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Voice actors per AngusWOOF. It's cross-namespace, but R2 doesn't cover this type of redirect. While long lists like this can't be controlled as easy, the category can just as well work as additions on the articles in question would need to be sourced anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." Pburka (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List is too broad in scope to be useful, because there are simply too many people who have worked as voice actors, too many editors who think every voice actor who exists gets an automatic notability freebie regardless of their sourceability (further adding a constant ebb and flow of additions and removals), and too many people who get added here on the basis of having once voiced a two-line cameo on The Simpsons without ever having had a regular voice-acting role at all, for this to be a maintainable list. Redirecting to a category is never a useful thing to do with a list title, either — for one thing, voice actors are subcategorized by nationality and gender, so there are exactly zero people filed directly in Category:Voice actors at all. So a person typing this title into the search bar won't actually end up at any actual list. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. The scope of this list is far too broad and too general to be useful. Wikipedia has thousands of biographies of voice actors from different nationalities to be of any use and countless more of regular actors who performed voice roles. —Farix (t | c) 15:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, the categories present make up for the list in a big way. I am neutral on a redirect here as I am unsure if it would be helpful or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 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 speedy delete. Given the obvious copyright violation and the lack of non-copyvio content that would form the basis for an article, deletion per WP:G12 was the only route. This is not to say that a list of podcast episodes such as this one is or isn't notable; that would of course be decided based on the sources in each case. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hello Internet Episodes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, such as detailed lists of podcast episodes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You cannot delete an episode description page on an "indiscriminate information basis." The episode list is useful for people who want to know a bit about the show without having to leave Wikipedia to find it in the iTunes store or their page, then find the episode description list, then find what they want. It is easy access. Furthermore, on the basis of the previous attempt to do this, the fact it is a talk show doesn't work against it as List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes exists as an episode description page for a talk show. There can't be multiple standards for the pages. If it is off the main page, as not to clutter it, then what exactly is the problem? UnknownM1 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the Podcast page, this was on a rollback because the editor of that page thought that listing the episodes was "messy." Yet this is valid information, compiled in a standard Wikipedia reference form for the purpose. It should be on the primary page Hello_Internet and User:Daniel Rigal should not have reversed it. Theclevertwit (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright infringement of episode list on iTunes. (Tagged)

I do not take kindly to my talk page comments being misrepresented. I did not use the word "messy" in either an edit summary or a talk page comment. What I actually said on the talk page was:

"I removed the list because it seemed to be copied directly from iTunes or from Hello Internet itself. We don't want a lot of content copied from other sources but what we can do is link to it instead."

That was me being nice, pointing out that we can't plagiarise other sources listings in a gentle way and being nice by adding a link to the full episode list under External links. I know that no good deed goes unpunished but I am not taking a trouting for this!

Now, this is me being slightly less nice, but not unreasonably so: The podcast teeters on the edge of being notable enough for an article. It falls just the right side of the line for a single article. It does not justify a stand alone episode list (like a highly notable TV show can do) or a walled garden of additional articles. Copyright issues aside, it does not offer the readers any advantage to look at a list of episodes on Wikipedia instead of on iTunes or HI's own website (which I linked to under External links). The "Tims" can put what they like on their own Wiki (and take the consequences if it turns out to be somebody else's copyright) but Wikipedia is not free web hosting for fansites. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is more of a WP:NOTCATALOGUE breach rather than being an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't matter what counter point is made, this list has a copyright infringement and needs to be deleted, further more, a list of episodes of an internet podcast is certainly not noteworthy nor encyclopedic content.Grapefruit17 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance space[edit]

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

Part of a walled garden of self-promotion, wholly reliant upon primary sources. See also the AfDs for Random structure function, Bernoulli stochastics, Bernoulli space, Stochastic thinking, Stochastic prediction procedure, Stochastic measurement procedure, and Quantification of randomness. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variability function. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google finds nearly 20 hits on this (filtered to include Collani to avoid unrelated things with the same name) but they all appear to be by Collani's associates. With no in-depth sourcing by multiple groups independent of its originator, it fails WP:GNG. Also it appears to be content-free drivel but I guess that's not relevant to our notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clear synthesis of one primary source and this introducing WP:OR in Wikipedia. No other reliable sources discussed this invented concept in this sense –Ammarpad (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the rest, needs independent reliable sources to pass WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:19, 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. Sandstein 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Pureval[edit]

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

A puffery-filled personal bio of a politician who doesn't meet WP:NPOL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel like I've done a decent job of stating facts objectively and without puffery; however, I do concede that I haven't included enough opposing viewpoints, and I'm working to fix that. As for notability, I feel strongly that Pureval meets WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources. Of particular note are the Daily Kos piece ([48]), this coverage in AdAge (I haven't yet added his Aftab/Aflac campaign advertising to the article), and the lengthy Cincinnati profile ([49]). He has also received significant local coverage beyond what is normally expected for the oft-ignored clerk of courts position -- compare the sources available on Google for "aftab pureval" vs those for his predecessor, "tracy winkler". -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clerk of courts at the county level is not a notability criterion that would get a person into Wikipedia under WP:NPOL, but the sourcing here is not making a strong case that he could be considered more notable than the norm. It's an office whose holders would simply be expected to generate some coverage in their county's own local media, so local coverage isn't enough to demonstrate notability by itself — to consider a person at this level of office notable enough for an article, we would require evidence that he was getting nationalized coverage beyond just Cincinnati media alone, thereby making him more notable than most other clerks of courts in most other counties. The fact that he may be more visible within Cincy than his predecessor was isn't the make-or-break condition in and of itself — the determing factor is whether or not his prominence can be shown as significantly wider (i.e. statewide or national) than most other court clerks could claim. But the only evidence of that being shown here is Daily Kos, which is not a notability-supporting source because it's a user-generated activist blog, not a media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I concede; I made a mistake here. I had read WP:NPOL before writing the article, but I hadn't read WP:POLOUTCOMES, so I didn't realize that meeting WP:GNG isn't sufficient for local politicians if the sources are almost entirely local. Mea culpa. (However, I am gonna hang on to a copy of the article, because I think it's pretty likely that he'll become notable in the future). -IagoQnsi (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politicians with this type of office are not in any way default notable and we need non-local coverage to be more than routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 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. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Paradise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recent AfD and a non-admin closure, but a bit late to simply re-open it.

They're a professor. But do they pass WP:ACADEMIC? I'm seeing neither the extent, nor the sourcing to justify this. This is another bio from a problematic community banned paid editor (KDS4444). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep distinguished chair at a research university. It means he passes PROF, and its been worked on by other editors to try to make it comply with our guidelines. Not a fan of the paid stuff, but Jytdog and others have helped here, so it isn't solely the work of a paid editor or only intended to promote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we're happy to take this on the basis of only a job title and a TV credit? This is supposedly an academic biography, yet there isn't even a publications list. A CV so thin would have a hard time getting a postdoc role, let alone claiming to be NOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of how North American academic ranks work. It means that he does meet the other PROF criteria without having to check. We also just had an RfC on this that confirmed passing PROF establishes notability independent of the GNG, and he clearly passes PROF. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is his "rank"? The infobox claims "Distinguished professor", but the staff list states "University professor". This is an article which might well end up labelled as "notable", but it's also painfully lax. We're not usually so accommodating to our editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, his details are on his university page. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps amazingly, I've already read that. And nowhere does it call him a "Distinguished professor", which is what the infobox claims. Now maybe in Arkansas a "University professor" is something special, but it isn't round here. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A University Professorship is a specific professorship given to academics with the rank of distinguished professor at some North American universities. It is different than simply being a professor at a university. It is a specific title for a highly regarded academic at the institution. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you wrote "A CV so thin would have a hard time getting a postdoc role", so I assumed you hadn't found his page. For "University Professor", see Academic ranks in the United States. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PROF. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Distinguished Professor" generally means someone with well-above-ordinary scholarship, and "University Professor" sometimes means something similar (at my campus it is like Distinguished Professor but even more rarefied). But at Arkansas it seems to mean someone with extraordinary contributions to service rather than to scholarship. So I don't think this is quite what we usually expect in WP:PROF#C5. Instead, in this case, it appears to be evidence of WP:PROF#C7, "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", presumably for his general-audience work on Petra. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a distinguished chair at a notable research university. It means he satisfies PROF. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHE (which is UK) someone with a "distinguished chair" would be titled as holding the "Zoidberg Chair in Psychoceramics" or similar. I can see no such description. Nor can I see "distinguished professor" being used anywhere outside our own infobox. As a BLP, we have to source such things, especially when their notability rests upon them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a " distinguished chair" he certainly passes WP:PROF and the renomination is a bit rushy with the previous AfD resulting in speedy keep barely 30 days ago. — Ammarpad (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C7, per David Eppstein's argument above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with Dingley. In the US true holders of "distinguished chairs" hold named chairs. If he does not have a named chair, at least in the US, he does not pass Academic criteria #7.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? "Named chair" means: someone gave money to the school, and you were the best we could find in that subject. "Distinguished professor" or in this cases "University professor" may be more meaningful, because it generally has specific levels of distinction required (that I have linked to above) rather than merely an endowment fund. In addition, "Distinguished professor" is specifically called out as equivalent to named professorships in the relevant WP:PROF criterion (which is not #7). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per the 1st AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 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. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee house church[edit]

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

Tagged as needing sources for over 7 years. This seems to be a rarely used WP:NEOLOGISM. An (admittedly shallow) search didn't turn up any good sources, although the phrase does appear occasionally. Note that this article isn't about coffeehouses run by churches (a trend in the USA for a while), but about congregations who meet in regular coffeehouses. Pburka (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sources. No evidence provided that the Catholic Church would approve of mass in a non-standard location like this. On the other hand, it makes assertions that having a worship service in a restaurant is inherently different from having one in a standard church building. Considering that the Harlem 1st branch that started meeting in a room in Sylvia's Restaurant of Harlem 20 years ago is the same organization as the Harlem 1st Ward that today meets in a regularly built LDS Chapel, I strongly suspect that the assertions of this article would not be held to be all people.Johen Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might be classified as a dictionary definition. This is a genuine way of conducting mission. It might be transwikified. Whatever the outcome, the list of denominations needs to be removed as largely irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 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. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Kruchinin[edit]

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

Scopus says h-index of 8, well below the threshold for WP:PROF. Editor of two journals that turn out to be predatory. WP:PEACOCK added by the WP:SPAs who are the main substantive contributors. However, Russian, so some of the issues with this awful article might be down to language difficulties. Guy (Help!) 00:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see a way to passing WP:PROF. GS citation counts for his listed publications: 0, 12, 15, 15, 18, 31, 14, 3, 30, 51, 14, 0, 2, 3. Even allowing for the irregularities of what GS sees and what it misses, there's no way this adds up to "influential". The 2010 textbook he coauthored has only 39 citations, and I can't find reviews of it. No evidence of awards or highly selective society fellowships that could indicate professional recognition. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the predatory editorships removed there is no evidence of WP:PROF. This article is puffed up in a particularly eastern-European way, but that's neither here nor there except that it makes any actual notability hard to find among all the noise. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the start is overly promotional and full of unneeded padding. If there was substance this might be overcomeable, but he just does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 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. Sandstein 12:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Basic and Applied Physics[edit]

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

This article was created by a WP:SPA - in fact, creating this article was their sole edit. Amazingly, they "forgot" to mention that the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory. Not in Thomson ISI, not in JIF, not in DOAJ. Not in any way notable. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose that a fraudulent journal could attain notability by being widely discussed as such, but this is nowhere near that level. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per the same reasoning as WP:FRINGE: Without sources discussing the predatory nature of this journal we have no way to write a properly WP:NPOV article. If we had an article on the publisher we could redirect there, but we don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following articles cite this journal btw: Prime number theorem, Taylor's law Tweedie distribution. It would also be more accurate to say that this was created by the journal's editor (hello massive COI here). In any case, delete.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this article is literally two short sentences, one external link, and a short table to make it appear better. Along with that, the article if you could even call it that, has four major issues tagged at the top which in my opinion constitutes deletion alone. definitely not WP:N and seems to be advertising somewhat, further more this information can all be found on the official website which not surprisingly was the one source for this article.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the nominator's statement that "the publisher is listed by Beall as predatory," here is support for that statement: The publisher listed in the wp article is World Academic Publishing, and that organization is listed as a predatory publisher here and here. -- econterms (talk) 18:44, 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.