< 24 November	26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cavite Bible Baptist Academy[edit]

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

Page fails notability and has no citations, and has been tagged for almost 9 years. News and search reveals nothing Mramoeba (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Johnpacklambert Operator873^CONNECT 03:47, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuta Voice Actor's Academy[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a voice acting school, which just asserts that it exists and then lists a bunch of its alumni. As always, something like this is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists -- it needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They need to be part of significant coverage which they fail. Störm (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even access their self source, it is showing error, that aside I don't see any independent source about this subject and no evidence there is. –Ammarpad (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Kurosawa[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial website and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Visitors (American punk band)[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.

This article fails notability. This was a local band which was signed for a very brief time to a small independent label. The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards as it does not contain any high-quality secondary sources. According to Wikipedia, ″Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity″.

The topic has not ″received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject″ (Wikipedia). Most of the sources lack ″editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability″ (Wikipedia).

Wikipedia also states that "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.″

The subject of the article has not gained significant attention from independent sources. Wikipedia states ″No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally

The page is full of unreliable and unverifiable and original research. The page contains quite a lot of unsourced conjecture and the sources are dubious. According to Wikipedia, ″the phrase ′original research′ (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.″

The sources are either local coverage in the Dallas Observer (which is a repeated source) or from an unknown fanzine. This would not pass the "significant independent coverage or recognition" required. Also, the reference to Billboard charts is actually "most requested songs on the radio" charts which does not pass reliable sources.

Also, the article breaches verifiability and is a conjectural interpretation.

The article also goes against the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. According to Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, ″If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.″

According to Wikipedia guidelines, ″material about living people that is sourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.″ ColonelDavy (talk) 20:36, 10 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) 21:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. But next time you write an AfD rationale, please try to be more concise. Pburka (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. Sources provided in article are either primary or mention the band incidentally. Operator873^CONNECT 03:56, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Nova School of the Arts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of Notability; fails ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Huntsville, Alabama#Education, where it can (should?) be mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~per Bushranger.~~ L3X1 (distænt write) 21:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to below, no I don't believe this school is notable enough to warrant a mention anywhere. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering my sister-in-law runs a music school with about this level of enrollment in Midland, Michigan I am unconvinced that a school of this size is actually notable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - altho JPL's comment isn't really a complelling argument to delete, it is a fair argument not to redirect. L3X1, The Bushranger, are you saying that every place that offers music lessons and has a website should have a page on Wikipedia? Cause that's what we've got here. It would be ridiculously trivial to include content in a settlement article in a place like this. Given that at least in the US, virtually every community over 200 people has a piano or guitar teacher, in a city the size of Huntsville that could easily number in the thousands. This is a music studio (not a recording studio). It isn't a school. It offers no diplomas. It offers no degrees. It offers no credits toward either. It's simply a place where you go to take music lessons, a great and wonderful but utterly non notable thing. I have a good friend that has been teaching keyboard and voice for about 30 years, first in the piano store they used to own and now in her home. She has two former students that would qualify for a Wiki biography clearly. Should I start writing an article about her business (which by the way, I could provide more sources for than this business, but still not enough to pass ORG)? John from Idegon (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC) resign to complete ping. John from Idegon (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) 21:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pburka (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be an after-school provision rather than a regular school. I can't find anything to suggest that it is notable in that field. JMWt (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. appears to be an extra curricular school rather than full time enrolment. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tajjaliyat e Nubuwat (book)[edit]

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

Book published by vanity publisher. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) 21:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews from academic or involvement of notable people and no sources for proving the importance. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religious book by religious organizations no outside independent reportage oc discussion of the book. Not published by academic publisher and reliable sources coverage. No award, no review fails WP:NBOOKS completely. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We need to have sources to keep an article. Without any sources, we cant even meet WP:V, which is an inviolable requirement. WP:N imposes additional requirements, but without sources, the inability to establish WP:V makes this a non-starter.

Note that there's no requirement for sources to be in English. Other languages are fine, and if you're not able to read that language, a variety of auto-translation tools are available, and Wikipedia:Translators available can help you find human translation assistance. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Indusian is in habit of creating such articles without reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only hits on Google are a couple of mentions of his death in the Hindu Times' "on this day in history" column, plus a blog post. Not proven to be significantly notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. I don't feel like I'm in a position to evaluate the notability here because the literature in this field is likely to be in either Sindhi (a google search for the full name in Sindhi returns a high (for the context) number of hits) or in Urdu (I can't read either), and sources in English aren't generally likely to be found. And if any are found, as the previous comment testifies, then this is likely to be another indication of notability. And speaking of editors and their habits, the nom does appear to have one for nominating articles without seeming to appreciate the need for WP:BEFORE. – Uanfala 09:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may continue your inclusionism campaign. We here follow WP guidelines which requires every subject to be verified per WP:V in WP:RS and should pass WP:GNG. Burden is on the creator of the article to find Sindhi-language sources not on us to go to Sindh and find coverage in old papers. Störm (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) 21:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on our clear criteria on this and what's shown isn't in that scope. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication the subject meets WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. There may be sources in other languages, but in the absence of evidence we shouldn't just assume so. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hyperlink. – Joe (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fat link[edit]

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

The term "fat link" does not seem to appear in the cited references. As such, it is nothing more than a neologism that lacks notability. Furthermore, I'm also nominating the redirect for deletion:

-- Rhymoid (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Contrary to the nominator's claim, the term "fat link" is included in the first reference that I accessed (reference 7). I could not access reference 3, but the article includes a quote from that reference which uses the term. Did the nominator determine that the quote is spurious and does not actually appear in the reference? References 1 and 2 indicate alternate names for the "fat link" concept. One of those alternate names (Extended links) is used on the page XLink to discuss how that language implements this type of link. Gpc62 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't like this article: it's written poorly, the concept is obscure, and it's largely promotional for a few non-notable products that implemented related concepts. But the argument to delete is invalid. A merge with Hyperlink might be reasonable but should be discussed first at that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) 21:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to hyperlink under types, because this is valid term and a type of hyper link but actually it doesn't deserve a standalone article at all. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hyperlink. It's a type of hyperlink. Not significant enough to stand on it's own; however, would be a useful component of the related article. Operator873^CONNECT 04:03, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

250 West 90th Street[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this building or interesting about this article. This is just a random NYC apartment building. It does not appear to meet the Notability criteria for having its own Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.30.32 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2017‎

Discussion page created on behalf of IP User:96.239.30.32 as requested here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As with past cases, I object to AFD editors paying any attention at all to this AFD nomination where it appears no editor takes responsibility. User:Malcolmxl5, will you stand by this nomination? Have you or will you perform wp:BEFORE and develop the article with sources, instead of foisting it upon others? You do others a disservice by this AFD as it appears now, if you do not step up. There is a reason that I.P. editors are not allowed to create AFDs.

I would support a general policy proposal to summarily dismiss AFDs like this. --do ncr am 14:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur wit DonCram.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure looks like a WP:Mill building to me. Searching turns up a plethora of real estate listings of condos for sale. I did find this [1] directory-type listing which could be used to verify basic facts but does nothing for notability The only book mention I found is [2] which is sourced from WP! MB 16:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (orate) 21:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morphenniel (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article pretty much exactly fits WP:ROTM and has no path to notability. Operator873^CONNECT 04:08, 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 procedural close. Wrong forum. Merges are proposed on article talk pages. Michig (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Arts Studios[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable, and non-substantial enough to exist as a separate article, it should just be merged with Electronic Arts. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:49, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against re-nomination by another user with a properly detailed rationale. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Osman[edit]

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

WP:BLPPROD — Alexey Tourbaevsky, _cheloVechek / ^talk 19:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) 21:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please kindly indicate the informations to be sourced. I believe this is unfounded as 'To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. (see WP:BLPPROD)' This decision seems arbitrary and has no apparent motivations. This action is against the policy for the deletion of biographical articles (see WP:BLPPROD). I request an immediate remediation to this problem.--Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This request is unjustified and unwarranted: this article respects amongst others the notability guideline n°12 of the musicians and music bands ('Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.', see WP:MUS) as Marina Osman has produced many shows broadcasted on national radio : radio Orpheus ^[1]. In addition, Marina Osman has participated to the production of the soundtrack of the film 'Ad Libitum'.^[2] --Les Yeux Noirs (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For WP:BLPPROD to apply, there must be no sources in any form. The nomination is therefore incorrectly made. Notability might be separate issue, but the subject does have a credible claim to significance. Would suggest this discussion be closed as keep and if the nominator wishes to pursue, it could be re-submitted with a more detailed rationale for deletion. Eagleash (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator mentioned WP:BLPPROD and probably shouldn't have but WP:AFD is a different process where any article can be nominated. The common standard an article should satisfy here at AFD is Wikipedia:Notability or a subject-specific guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (music). I assume John Pack Lambert's "Delete" was referring to the latter. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a well-researched and constructed article and meeting WP:MUS, as stated above, is enough. Spicemix (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: certainly doesn't meet BLPPROD, but the sources at present don't look good. References 2, 3, 13 and 14 aren't actually references at all, more like footnotes. The last two references are to the personal website of viola player Mikhail Kazinik and won't qualify as reliable sources – there are also two links to a music college website, and some of the other references are to blogs and simple event listings, which also won't pass RS, so I'm not sure if there are any independent reliable sources at all in this article. @Les Yeux Noirs: you are only allowed one vote, so one of your "keep" votes above should be struck. Richard3120 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.muzcentrum.ru/orpheusradio/programs/musicthatcameback/11566-vecher-improvizatsii-vstrecha-pervaya
^ "Архив". www.kazinik.ru. Retrieved 2017-09-17.

Comment, some editors above state correctly that, at present, the article shows that Osman meets WP:MUS, specifically point 12, nevertheless, these are guidelines only - "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb.." and "may be notable (my emphasis) if they meet at least one of the following criteria.", that said, Osman possibly meets WP:ANYBIO ("2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"), i would be happier if the article contained more sources that show this. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-constructed article. --Aliveviolin (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC) — Aliveviolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Richard3120 (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchers[edit]

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

Other than this there's literally nothing on this company, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 21:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (cajole) 21:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.A single shop, no refs, no news about the shop. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2017 (UUTC
Delete heavy claim but unverifiable in independent sources. Non notable shop (dept store?) –Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.--SamHolt6 (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SJM Entertainments[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY; lack of independent sources. Besides, it is created by a sock. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Completely lacks any sort of reliable sources, whatsoever. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) 21:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (address) 21:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) 21:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:22, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemarie Falk[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future by-election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if the person does not already pass a Wikipedia notability criterion for some other reason, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election per se. In addition, this was created in draftspace and then immediately moved into articlespace without a proper AFC review, which is not what draftspace is for. No prejudice against recreation after byelection day if she wins, but nothing here entitles her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. There isn't enough references for this person to pass notability requirements. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –Because of lack of significant coverage to establish notability that can meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. The article is written prematurely as mom said, (perhaps as part of campaing sttategies). Almost all the sources are in banal format A is contesting for this, A will contest for that If eventually she wins, there will be more coverage of her of course, and will easily meet WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG but in the event she didn't succeed, all this media hype will recede and it will be confined to historical dustbin. Since we don't know what will happen next and Wikipedia doesn't predict the future, the right thing to do is to delete until when substantial coverage is no longer doubtful and extend beyond banal news of A is contesting for X in Y election –Ammarpad (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected canddiates in this level of election are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C. Martino[edit]

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

This person is a nonentity. Unheard of. Does not run a charity. Is not an entrepreneur. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoola (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a piece of self-promotion by someone with dubious business practices and no real public profile - the situation is explained in depth (with a summary) here and thus this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshubble (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO 80.229.154.54 (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Properly formatting and transcluding AFD. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough to establish any sort of notability. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked all of the refs, they don't support notability, indeed they look more like fake news. Szzuk (talk) 19:07, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Kwizera[edit]

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

As an advocate of African cinema I usually do extensive research on an actor before nominating it. There were many things wrong with this article before I cleaned it up. I removed the dubious claim that he won "Africa Movie Academy Award for best Young Actor", when he wasn't even nominated for any category. The only film he has featured in, was an uncredited role in Viva Riva. Google search produced nothing on him, I mean not even passing mentions. Fails WP:NACTOR by a far stretch. Doesn't have a film significant film career. Darreg (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom the only result of search is this article (and its mirrors). Long way to meeting WP:ACTOR and case of WP:TOOSOON. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kumar Das[edit]

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

non notable person, no reliable sources found. HINDWIKI • CHAT 14:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 14:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Vijay Kumar Das is a well known journalist and being discussed over news. Below are few of the list of resources in support to keep Vijay Kumar Das profile in Wikipedia. He has also been mentioned in the Website of Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh. exchange4media hindustanimedia jagran pradeshtoday socialmediamp metromirror mpsamachar danikhastakshep mympdigital CM of Madhya Pradesh. For more details, please see the talk page. MyeraMishra (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Notable person in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. He meets WP:V policy. He also appears in Zee news for debates from many years. Dbbpl (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC) — Dbbpl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- @Dbbpl: Are you the same person as MyeraMishra (talk · contribs)? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rosoft I would strongly recommend raising this at SPI. I'm getting a strong suspicion you are right. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not Myera Mishra; I do not know who he/she is.

~~Delete~~ Non notable person. against WP:BLP policy. HINDWIKI • CHAT 08:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: * Yes, I do know him very well. He also appears in Zee News for the political analysis. He is among the well known Senior Journalist in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. I suggest to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5782:AB33:0:0:1E37:18A4 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Yes, Vijay Kumar Das is an influential person in Bhopal region.

122.172.186.92 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Yes, Vijay Kumar Das is senior journalist and often appears in televisions for debates.

156.149.249.10 (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:I strongly believe that we should Keep the profile. I have added the references/citations from the existing Wikipedia articles.

171.48.29.107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per User:HindWIKI. #1997 kB 04:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are obvious meat-puppets in the IP votes. The coverage is largely about Rashtriya Hindi Mail, not Vijay Kumar Das. The Rashtriya Hindi Mail has an awful English-language website, but appears to publish a newspaper (that I can't read). [3]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poorvika[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Kleuske (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the SPA (and possible sock) added a redirect template to the article as a hatnote -- and the only reason I can think of right now is a poor attempt to disqualify it for Afd -- changing or attempting to change namespaces is a fairly common evasion at Xfd. Anyway, I removed it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting move indeed. I only found this because they posted a helpme template on their talk. Anywho, there's some descent sources out there for this subject but not enough to demonstrate notability as per WP:NCORP. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Mocan[edit]

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

Wrote one paper in Nature Scientific Reports, another in a predatory open access journal, and published a book through an academic vanity press (also a publisher of predatory journals). The sole editor of the article is a WP:SPA. No reliable independent sources, appears not to pass WP:PROF. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even coming close to showing notability is an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An h-index on GS of only 17, with no paper breaking 100 citations, is too low for medical research. Moreover, once you discount the papers in journals from predatory publishers, the h-index drops to 12, and it would drop further after eliminating the citations to the remaining papers which come from predatory journals. In addition, the journal for which Mocan is editor-in-chief, Biotechnology, Molecular Biology and Nanomedicine, is published by "Research Publisher", which (a) reminds me of "beer"-brand beer and (b) is disreputable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we ignore the predatory publishing issue we don't have evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Duckdalben International Seamen’s Club. Merge can be carried out from article history. ansh 666 00:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Oltmanns[edit]

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

not notable BLP, poorly sourced -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jan Oltmanns is founder and now director of one of the best awarded seamens club in the world (Duckdalben Hamburg) and was therefor awarded with the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. --Pankoken (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERIT. still needs sources to verify all of this. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge to Duckdalben International Seaman’s Club. Subject to BLP issues, my impression was that he was another NN clergyman. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to get it translated from de:Seemannsclub Duckdalben, that could work. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the original nomination. Redirect could make sense if the Seemannsclub Duckdalben article were created.PRehse (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO and looks like a tribute page. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Maybe I'm being curmudgeonly, but IMO also fails verifiability for an English-language encyclopædia, as all the sources are in German ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be being curmudgeonly, but you are certainly being wrong. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers to the language in which it is written, not to the language of sources which may be in any language per WP:NONENG. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seamensclub Duckdalben article is in the import queue, translation next week. --Pankoken (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see Duckdalben International Seamen’s Club --Pankoken (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homescapes[edit]

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

I see a single review at Gamezebo, meaning this video game does not display the characteristics expected of notability. Izno (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's a number of sources in google news that presently aren't listed at WP:VG/S (but that haven't been evaluated) that cover the game in more depth, including a dev interview [4] and a a review of how it monetizes. There's also this Venture Beat article. At minimum, there is a valid merge-and-redirect to Playrix (the developer/publisher). --MASEM (t) 15:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that Gardenscapes (the preceeding title to this) should probably be considered at the same time. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might note I prodded the other. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is one more PocketGamer news piece. And the game is quite popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan titov (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Compiling the reliable sources mentioned so far, it looks like there's enough to pass the bare minimum of the WP:GNG.

All sources have a consensus for being reliable per WP:VG/S and are completely dedicated to the subject, and only one is a routine "the product is announced" type source. Additionally, while there's no means of proving notability through popularity, the fact that apparently has 28 million downloads could be considered an indicator that the game's well known enough that other sourcing exists as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ossai Ovie Success[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated bio with smack of promotion of non notable assistant of politician, sourced with two unreliable vanity blog sources and one facebook self source –Ammarpad (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a personal aide on a politician's staff is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion criterion, but the referencing here isn't even close to good enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Also, I suspect conflict of interest editing, as the creator is an WP:SPA whose edit history consists exclusively of repeated attempts to make this article happen — in addition to the first AFD discussion, it's also been speedied twice at this title and twice more at the improperly-capitalized variant title Ossai ovie success, and attempted at least once in draftspace too, so a dose of WP:SALT may be needed as well. And on top of that, the creator's response to the AFD nomination this time was to try to push the article into talkspace, where it doesn't belong. We're an encyclopedia on which articles are earned by having reliable source coverage for the passage of a notability criterion, not a free alternative to LinkedIn on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just the other day I created 3 articles on former members of the Parliament of Ghana. There are probably hundreds of people who have served in smilar positions in countries in Africa over the last 30 years who we lack articles on. There is no justification to waste time in creating and maintaining articles on personal spokepersons for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 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 Speedy Keep given WP:SK1 and WP:SK3 and no adequate deletion basis, NAC SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Hewitt[edit]

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

Article is not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs)

keep per WP:PROF, he is a fellow of the Royal Society [5]. 194.125.72.227 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Passes WP:Prof#3. How did this inadequate and unsigned nomination slip through the net? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple published books that are widely held. For example, International encyclopedia of heat & mass transfer is held by 311 libraries, while Introduction to nuclear power is held by 500. See Worldcat Identities. Reviews of his books are very likely to be available. Looks like an authority in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes at least WP:PROF#C3 (society fellowships) and WP:PROF#C5 (named chair), and probably also WP:PROF#C2 (World Energy Prize) and WP:PROF#C4/WP:AUTHOR (textbooks). XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Momodora. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Momodora III[edit]

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

This topic does not appear to have notability (at least in English sources--which it should given its release on Steam). All I can pick out from the sources listed in WP:VGRS are a bunch of announcements: Destructoid: Steam, Greenlight; Hardcoregamer: Steam; Indiegames: demo. There's a bunch of mentions here and there, but otherwise, certainly no dedicated reviews, interviews, or other indications of real-world notability.

I note a series page at Momodora; perhaps that would make a decent "this exists" redirect target (note the page is by the same author). Izno (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Momodora. This should probably have been a case of boldly redirect before going straight to an AfD that will obviously have the outcome of redirect. I couldn't find much coverage of it either, and it's easy to see why, the game's pretty short compared to Momodora IV and didn't get the same kind of widespread acclaim._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: I didn't realize the mainspace page existed when I originally nommed the page; I bumped into the draftspace version and started looking around. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should there even be a series article in this situation? Momodora 1-3 have minimal/zero coverage, Momodora 4 already has its own article, and development of Momodora V was canceled. If the series article is just going to briefly mention that the first 3 games exist, then that could easily be merged into a development/history section of the Momodora IV article. CurlyWi (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed there was sufficient coverage, but if there isn't, that should be an issue for an AfD of THAT page. In that case I think there should be no redirects, due to it being overly confusing to redirect Momodora 1-3 to Momodora IV._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with CurlyWi at a general level. I don't agree about not redirecting the others, as they should be mentioned in the development/history section of 4, which makes them plausible redirects. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Momodora since redirects are cheap and this is plausible search term and may have to be created even if deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfy (typeface)[edit]

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

A free font available on some font repository websites. I have not been able to find any evidence that this font has been the subject of book or news coverage, or extensive coverage on websites dedicated to writing articles about fonts. There are websites that display it, not surprisingly since it's free, and MyFonts sells an expanded version, but no descriptive coverage or suggestion that it is special or notable. Blythwood (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is even cloned and from cloning direct to Wikipedia without independent secondary sources coverage. No evidence this has received any media attention and thus fails WP:GNG comoletely –Ammarpad (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jack Mulligan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Not to be confused with the similarly named American Blackjack Mulligan. Nikki♥311 13:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep In coming to this AFD through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling, I see via that page a whole pattern of deletion actions by the nominator. The pattern suggests an effort to keep our coverage of professional wrestling at the level of a walled garden which mindlessly repeats WP:PW's favored cherry-picked wrestling websites, rather than a reflection of the breadth of existing sources in general. This particular nomination especially pegged my bullshit meter. Firstly, we read "Doesn't meet WP:GNG" despite the article stating that he wrestled on network television. Then we read "No significant coverage in reliable independent sources", which to me implies a belief that New Society isn't possibly a reliable source. Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom and professional wrestling in the 1970s are two (among numerous) subtopics that the regulars of WP:PW have consistently shown no desire or obligation to give appropriate weight to in the course of our coverage. And speaking of walled gardens, should it also be pointed out that the nominator added the AFD to the wrestling-related deletion sorting list but no other such lists? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTP. Deletion discussions are about the article not about the person who nominated it. I'm saying he doesn't meet WP:GNG because I see no evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. New Society is one source, and one source doesn't equal significant coverage. The article itself says he could occasionally be seen on World of Sport, but that isn't enough to satisfy the "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER. Nikki♥311 15:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total and complete failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not seeing significant converage in those necessary reliable sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried and failed to find sources to improve the article. Part of that is because searches are flooded for results for the more notable Blackjack Mulligan, part of that is because the subject's heyday was decades ago and older sources are just hard to find, and part of that is because he wasn't that notable in the first place. RadioKAOS has switched my !vote several times over the years and I typically agree that we neglect this era of wrestling, but I'm not convinced that a subject is automatically notable just because they had a bit part on a national television show.LM2000 (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Irregardless if the topic is notable or not; if we can't find sources about him, the page is worthless. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT which per WP:NSPORT states is our guideline for this. - Galatz ^Talk 14:36, 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 13:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyware labs[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG: no coverage in reliable sources outside of WP:SPIP, the references are press releases and rehashes of press releases. Rentier (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources and smacks of promotion. Wikipedia article, mirror sites and their own self publish site is the only result from search that contain any meaningful detail. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pierce Brosnan per WP:BOLD. ansh 666 20:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brosnan[edit]

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

Came across this article while doing dab patrol. There were a whole bunch of films listed under his AD section for which there is no evidence that he has any relationship to. Other than his relationship to his more famous family members, not enough in-depth coverage on this person to show they pass WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass either WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, yup, I redirectet it. When I created it he was more notable at the time with Love Island but he's not really done anything which goes beyond tabloid personal life coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't have any issue with it being redirected to Pierce Brosnan. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Channa Muhallah, Jacobabad[edit]

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

Muhallah, a city quarter - not notable per se, no sources, no incoming links. — kashmiri ^TALK 11:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an entry in the otherwise quite extensive http://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz. – Uanfala 11:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 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 speedy delete as no content (A3). In the future, please use CSD tags for articles with no content in them. (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aceh World Solidarity Tsunami Cup[edit]

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

Only have 2 Templates and an empty section. AndyAndyAndyAlbert (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chembra Makku Ezhuthachan[edit]

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

Non-notable magician. Also fails WP:V Pontificalibus (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 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. Withdrawn by nominator after sufficient evidence for notability found. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Naylor-Leyland[edit]

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

I do not see any notability, but obviously speedy nominating article with dozens of sources does not make sense, hence I bring it there. It looks to me that this is a typical example of a coatrack. Apparently, the major notability claim is that she is a contributor in Vogue. I am afraid this is not enough. Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No notability? I beg to differ. She's a contributing editor for Vogue Magazine and Harper's Bazaar, has two shoe collections with French Sole, has a fragrance with Lauder, is featured frequently in Tatler and other society magazines as a socialite, and has a large social media following. There are plenty of secondary sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might very well be wrong, but let us see what others say.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has a large following on Instagram (94.4k), is a 'contributing editor to Vogue Magazine and Harper's Bazaar' and is featured prominently in the fashion industry.--Dreamy Jazz (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete number of instagram followers is not a sign of notability. We lack the needed reliable sources about her to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when were Vogue, Tatler, and Harper's Bazaar not reliable sources? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think features by The Telegraph [6] and Architectural Digest [7] go a ways to establish notability, don't you? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very in-depth coverage from sources like The Telegraph and Architectural Digest. [8][9] I found these sources in less than 5 seconds. Of course the nom shouldn't have speedy nominated and these sources were two of the nom-admitted "dozens of sources" already in the article. The nom didn't even have to do a g-search to follow WP:BEFORE but just look at the sources they admit were already present. --Oakshade (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph reads like a paid advert, but indeed I should have noticed AD which is not and which provides notability. As far as I am concerned, it can be closed now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Kamchev[edit]

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

poorly sourced, and the information on companies owned is entirely unsourced Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've found this, and despite that being an interview only, it confirms Kamchev's importance in Macedonia, stating 'As CEO of a key company in Macedonia, how are you committed to boosting the economic growth and development of your country?'. There's this on the Macedonian Wikipedia. Also, many of the links are dead and there could be SIGCOV there, and I don't think Macedonia reports a lot on news. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 02:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've gone and fixed a link, but I can't find the original Forbes article referred to there. Graham87 05:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jordan Kamchev is the richest person in Macedonia according to Forbes. We can keep this article based on this fact. Also, there are high chances that coverage exists in Macedonian language. I will go with Weak Keep. Störm (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sustained international coverage, though not all of it very positive. See this article in the Guardian (2006), with three paragraphs about Kamchev (spelled Kamcev here). A bit more in this 2015 article. And this Daily Mail article (yes, not allowed to use in the article, but again indication of notability). The "richest Macedonian" has been repeated in this source. And it looks as if there are countless Macedonian sources about him (not surprisingly). In 2008 he became the president of FK Vardar, the most important Macedonian soccer team[10]. Article should perhaps be moved to Jordan Kamcev, which seems to be the more common name? Fram (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to !vote keep but for your information there is consensus to not allow The Daily Mail as a source for determining notability (first paragraph of close, second sentence), especially in BLPs. I actually made that mistake once as well—at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First website ever made—but from rummaging archives I've learn't from that. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 02:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hadn't noticed that. Oh well, there are more than enough other sources (ones I listed, and shit ones like the Sun, and many ones I can't understand but where Kamcev clearly is the subject of significant attention), plus probably a lot of Macedonian offline ones. Fram (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [11][12] and I am not that sure about the common name that is used by more reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Richest person in any UN-recognized country is certainly notable. In addition, Macedonian version of the article has some sources that can be used to expand this. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Ammarpad. = paul2520 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep and rename as per the sources found. Systemic bias is definitely a problem here but the richest person in a multi-million populated country should certainly be notable. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 23:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is Lord Church Worldwide[edit]

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

This article is in practice completely unsourced. All the references are either to Jesus Is Lord Church's own website or their Youtube channel, or to the site of the founder, Eddie Villanueva. The article has had to be indefinitely semiprotected because of in-universe promotion being persistently added by followers. Note that the name of the article has been changed, so see [13] if you want to look at the protection log.

I prodded the article on 6 November. The prod has been removed by a user who added more sources, but those sources are also all to the Church itself or to Villanueva. I've googled, but I'm unable to find any secondary sources at all. So things like "membership 4 million" are simply claims the church itself makes. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it really lived up to the claims, appropriate sources would easily be provided. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Utterly ridiculous claims with no sources for them or that I can find. Galobtter (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)~~ Actually ... a google books search does reveal [14] from cambridge university press supporting the article...weird Galobtter (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Able to find another book by the same author about this church..yet I know this church is in the phillipines so english language sources will be harder to find but surely there has to be more coverage on it if it truly is what it claims.. Galobtter (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With [15] and more I think it passes GNG. From this does appear to be one of the largest pentacostal churches in the phillipines. Will need to qualify a lot of the claims though. Galobtter (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep only. This appears to relate to a large local church which has had to move to having multiple services and has planted congregations in three other places. It is a bit small to regard as a denomination. In addition it appears to have many "contact centres" worldwide, but their significance is not clear: these do not seem to be congregations. It is always a difficult question as to when a local church is significant enough to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this there are 478 sunday services accross the phillipines. Galobtter (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added four references to the article think passes WP:GNG and it one of the largest pentacostal churches in the phillipines with millions of members. this this,this ,this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the organization being mentioned in Google books, the article is typed up in a form of advertisement per WP:PROMOTION. User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, Lulu.com is not considered a reliable source since its a self-publisher. ~~I recommend the article be sent to draft and recreated through WP:AfC.~~ — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ammarpad & E.M.Gregory — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another source from Polish version, plus WP:PROMO language is not reason for deletion because it can be toned down, otherwise, if t is such blatantly promotional it will qualify for G11. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -another source JIL holds prayer rally to mark 29th year from reliable and notable Newspaper The Philippine Star. These and already ones given above combined with those existing in the article will surely establish notability –Ammarpad (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of soruces, sometimes mere mentions, like the fact that the church has a branch in the "Little Manila" neighborhood of Tel Aviv, but also INDEPTH stories like Feuding religious sects go to court about this church's apparently intense rivalry with the El Shaddai (movement). Article needs cleanup, expansion as lots of our article do. But the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I added a little sourced text on the rivalry between this church and El Shaddai, sources include South China Morning Post and Wall Street Journal (Asia edition). The rivalry appears to have peaked in the 1990s, which probably explains why Nom had trouble finding this church. WSJ says it "faded" after President Estrada joined El Shaddai. Sounds plausible. I am NOT saying that his is a good article. It needs a major cleanup, more sources, a project for some future historian of Philippine Christian movements. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'm kind of surprised this article got nominated for deletion at all considering the prominence and size of the group. The group (independent of Villanueva) has received much coverage, both in Filipino and in English, within the Philippines and elsewhere. Nevertheless, the article still needs cleanup and be brought to a respectable standard (much like most of our other articles on Philippine topics). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Mir[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a large footprint of news coverage of him as a journalist. He was also involved in an infamous 2014 incident [16][17] [18] [19] Mar4d (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that falls under single event so violates WP policy. Störm (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Basically, the only source cited in the article that covers him in any depth is the reporting by Reporters Without Borders about the threats against him, but these reports (and threats) are good enough for me as an indicator that he is a journalist of some importance in Pakistan - if he weren't, he wouldn't have been threatened. Sandstein 07:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. E. Matthews[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 01:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is this chapter of a book, which was authored by Professor Jake Roudkovski, showing independentness and reliability. There is also this, this, this, this, this, this, and probably more. Keep. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 06:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, also with historic significance. Thanks for those sources J947. I added a few more in the article. It just needs expanding. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What we have is only a stub, but if its claims are correct, he will haver been significant in his time. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY I added a little material form the Washington Post about his civil rights advocacy, and a couple of other sources. I think there is enough here to keep on this old time Baptist minister with national press coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lankey[edit]

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

Despite Edison crossing the arbitrary 100K mark in population, Lankey is still a local politician with none of the broad reliable and verifiable coverage needed to establish notability, either in the article or available by a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Article has existed since 2014, demonstrating consensus to keep. Edison is 5th largest town in NJ, with over 100,000 pop.Djflem (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The amount of time that an article has existed does not constitute evidence of a consensus to keep — since it's always possible for anybody to create an article about anything, but the determination of a deletion or retention consensus requires somebody to notice whether it's complying with our rules or not, the length of time it takes for the latter thing to happen is entirely irrelevant to whether the article is keepable or not. And the 100K test is not a permanent notability criterion in and of itself — over 100K, mayors are initially granted a temporary presumption of notability pending the addition of better sources, but they don't get a permanent inclusion freebie just because the city's population has passed that arbitrary mark: they can still be deleted if the sourcing and substance remains inadequate two or three years after their election.
Which is the case here: all this does is state that he exists and then briefly delve into his past résumé, and it's referenced entirely to a mix of primary sources and routine local coverage of the mayoral election itself — there's no substance and no sourcing being shown here at all about anything he did in the mayor's chair: it does name one goal he articulated while he was still just the mayor-elect, but contains no content to clarify whether he actually succeeded in achieving that goal or not once he was the actual mayor.
To be kept on a permanent basis, a mayor has to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about his mayoralty to clear WP:NPOL #2: mayors of cities over 100K can still be deleted if they aren't properly shown to have that, and mayors of cities under 100K can be kept if they are. It's the quality of sourcing that constitutes the difference between keep and delete for a mayor — the only thing the size of the city controls is whether the initial creation of the article gets a temporary "grace period" to allow for improvement or not. It does not confer any permanent exemption from having to be better-sourced and better-substanced than this three years later. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree there is a desire for better and more complete sourcing in all of the articles, I don't understand your conclusion. I am not sure why you are making the distinction of "notability pending the addition of better sources?" Broadly most SNG policies discuss a presumption of notability, which does not rest upon routine sources, the local nature of the source, or primary sources (the latter can be used to develop an article [see WP:Primary: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"]). If an individual is a public figure and meets the notability guidelines WP:NPOL (supplemented by WP:POLOUTCOMES, then all we really need (and have required) in terms of sourcing is that the individual held the position described in the article (which can be an official source).

To me, there is a large distinction in how we treat individuals based on who is a public figure and who is (or will likely remain) a low-profile individual. In general, without being explicit about the distinction, we have treated losing candidates, and elected officials holding relatively minor posts* (*not a term of art, but to me encompassing most city and county council members, small city mayors, and the like), as low-profile individuals. With low-profile individuals there is a greater presumption of privacy, and as such, greater scrutiny of the sourcing to see if the subject meets WP:BLP. --Enos733 (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the notability guidelines for politicians are quite clear that a mayor's notability depends on the sourcing. There is no population cutoff beyond which a mayor is automatically kept forever despite lacking any sources or any real substance — adequate sourcing and substance being present in the article is the notability test for a mayor of any size of city. The old "population test" that used to get bad articles kept anyway has been deprecated as not applicable to the notability of a mayor anymore — it's now adequate sourcing or bust, regardless of whether the place has a population of ten thousand, a hundred thousand or five million. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the population test has been depreciated, as I remember when there were healthy discussions of whether 50,000 was adequate for the presumption of notability (and I was one who said that that standard was too low) and for city councilmembers, there was some discussion about "global cities" (also depreciated), I don't recall a point where the population standard was depreciated to a degree that it serves no purpose. I still see value in a population threshold (because at some point you have elected officials crossing the line from being a low-profile elected official to a major public figure [and yes, I know those terms do not quite align with the standard for notability]). While extreme, there are some candidates for office who are unopposed for election or may not even be known to much of their city's residents. At the same time, there is a certain threshold of being in the public spotlight to run as the chief executive of a large city. Where that distinction 'really' lies is a matter of interpretation, but Wikipedia's guidelines treat low-profile individuals differently (and with more deference to individual privacy) while a public figure has a lower threshold. Similarly, there is a recognition that the quality of journalism is generally different between a purely local paper and a regional paper. Local papers may be a repository of press releases (reprints of primary sources), while a larger paper might do more investigative work and independent fact-checking. So, in this case, size does matter, at least to me. --Enos733 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my response to Bearcat @18:21 and that the subject serves in the office of mayor of a large city (greater than 100,000) and is the subject in multiple articles in the The Star-Ledger, the largest newspaper by circulation in New Jersey. --Enos733 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles in The Star-Ledger are being shown in the article as written. Any mayor of anywhere could always show two sources in the local paper, so it takes quite a lot more than just two sources to get a mayor kept. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to go through all of the sources, but a quick check of Google News has about 1,490 hits for "'Thomas Lankey' Edison" Some of them are reports about the local election, others appear to be a bit more about the subject and his work in office. (Story plus interview here) --Enos733 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep ~~for now~~ – Somehow, the interview mentioned above has got into an Indian newspaper ([20]), yet with a different start to the article. Both have got leads, thus failing to count low and do have SIGCOV outside of that interview. This is definitely outside local sourcing, and with my standard that local sources count as half a source, 2 sources are met. Also, is nj reliable? I'm asking this because then notability wouldn't be so dubious. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nj is local as well. Also, the NYT—in which I agree is only local in this area—goes here as well. Denouncing New Jersey coverage of this mayor as 'local' is very similar to denouncing national coverage of a mayor in Akureyri, Iceland. This is definitely local coverage for example. The Washington Post and The New York Times have both got a reputation for reliability, and even so they are both in a different state to Edison and should at least be counted as half a source each. Some math in my head shows that the number of full sources is 3 or above, so I've removed the 'weak' on my rationale. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 19:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is routine and not enough to show notability. We have had articles since 2006 that routinely come up for deletion and are deleted. The number of articles in Wikipedia in propotion to the number of editors, combined with the fact that it is a four step process to delete (do a before study of sources, edit the page, write a deletion nomination, post it on the deletion log page, and this is ignoring the need to generally post more notices of it), which takes a lot of time and energy to be good at, means that an article existing for any amount of time shows no consensus for anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the coverage is routine. He is mentioned in the New York Times responding to a racist mailing opposing him. A similar article was featured in the Washington Post. Even if the City of Edison was not considered a city of regional prominence, our expectations for a local mayor is the receive national coverage. However, I contend that in cities of a certain size, over 100,000 makes sense to me, and where the subject was independently elected (as opposed to being selected by their city council), the mayor becomes a public figure regardless of which secondary sources cover the individual and their actions. --Enos733 (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the New York Times has national distribution doesn't reify it into national coverage for the purposes of GNGing the mayor of a town that's located inside the NYT's local coverage area. It just demonstrates that the local media are paying attention to him in exactly the same way that local media always pay attention to local mayors, and does not prove that he's recognized as a national figure who's getting attention beyond the local media. It's the place where the coverage originates that has to expand away from local before a notability standard that requires nationalized coverage can be said to have passed, not the local media's distribution range. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 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 speedy keep. withdrawing DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Binx[edit]

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

essentially promotional article on almost unknown performer. I do not think she meets NMUSIC, but I admit that's not my special field. The New Yorker "article" was one of their notices, not a full article DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many of the sources say that her song "Radiohead" was "number 1 on a South African radio chart." I haven't been able to find any reliable evidence of this, or of what "a South African radio chart" means, but this might be a lead for anyone looking to find evidence that the page satisfies WP:NMUSIC. For NMUSIC's criterion of published articles, the New Yorker article is more than "trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" -- so it would seem that that would qualify as one published work in a reliable source, of which multiple would be needed for that criterion. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how four sentences covering nationality, birthplace and a mention of her music career is "entirely promotional"! In actual fact, there isn't really any "promotional text" in the article. I did some work cleaning this article up before it was nominated for AfD. Looking at the references then, it appeared to me to be just notable enough for inclusion. They are not fabulous, but they are there. She's a musician on the international stage, and receiving some quality press for her work. During my search it also appeared that she is well known in South Africa.198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a longish article in the SA press, published three days ago.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If this is promotional, whoever is doing the promoting is doing a very poor job. A fair amount of coverage found ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]), although she doesn't appear to have done much yet to merit an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of the coverage that has been brought up, which seems sufficient to meet NMUSIC. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:40, 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 merge to List of characters in Earthsea. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erreth-Akbe[edit]

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

No notability outside book universe. Article consists solely of plot summary. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Erreth-Akbe is discussed in Hart and Slovic's Literature and the Environment, in Phillis Jean Perry's Teaching Fantasy Novels, and in Michael Faerber's A Dictionary of Literary Symbols, as well as in peer-reviewed articles by Manlove (1983), Hatfield (1993), and Trębicki (2011), among others. Certainly enough to satisfy GNG and demonstrate "notability outside the book universe". AFDISNOTCLEANUP Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of characters in Earthsea Literature and the Environment is weird - what I see seems to read more like a novel summary than literary analysis. Ditto for Teaching Fantasy Novels - all the mentions of his name seem to be right in the midst of a summary. There are a few sentences in From Homer to Harry Potter: A Handbook on Myth and Fantasy but frankly I don't think they are sufficient for stand-alone notability. Citations from scholar don't impress me either, same issue - those are plot summaries or quotes from the novel. I am afraid that User:Newimpartial has not read any of the sources, just looked at google hits in books/scholar. What we need to prove his notability is analysis that goes beyond plot summary, and that is lacking not only in the article but in the sources I see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Piotrus and I disagree about what constitutes a TRIVIALMENTION, but it would have been better for him to AGF rather than launching a personal attack. I did in fact look at the sources, as anyone who looks carefully at the search results would note - I did not include any of the results that were only to the Ring of Erreth-Akbe, or that were mentions in passing, for example. The discussion on page 79 of Literature and the Environment is (1) not a trivial mention; (2) about Erreth-Akbe the character, not about the ring, and (3) is not a summary but a critical comment about the way the legend of Erreth-Akbe is used in the text. That and From Homer to Harry Potter alone would be enough to satisfy WP:N, but there are in fact many other mentions, including whole thesis or articles in which the Ring of Erreth-Akbe is prominent and, as M. Stawicki argued (1997, and I don't have the Polish to put the passage in context, unfortunately): "Erreth-Akbe must have existed, if his magical ring is found by Ged." :) Newimpartial (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Piotrus makes the case in the middle of trying to refute notability: RS summaries are necessarily transformative and thus count as independent, significant coverage, and hence GNG is met even without inappropriate ad hominem allegations. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Piotrus. Even if the character has received coverage, they have received this coverage as part of coverage of the broader work that they are part of, which is what is principally notable. Only the most exceptionally well-known fictional characters such as Darth Vader are part of the public consciousness independently from the work they are a part of. Sandstein 07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netrendity[edit]

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

I can't find any independent reliable sources that support the existence of this organization. Thus, the article should be deleted per our general notability guidelines and our notability guidelines for corporations. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of this establishment can be found in this legal document [27] Iphageenia^{User talk:Iphageenia} 20:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that doesn't support anything else besides the fact that the business actually exists. Thus, an article about such a business would not be able to be verified properly, as there is nothing that can be verified (at least with online reliable sources) besides its existence. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to review this page, which such operation it coordinates and shows the company's involvement on the content. Page has been up for several months and is expanding soon. Iphageenia^{User talk:Iphageenia} 20:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages and is not a platform intended for cheap marketing or promotion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources either. The aboe objection didn't resolve the fundamental problem (notability) one is document narrowly showing existence and WP:E≠N, the other is reference to (likely) more notable brand which they are related but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED on Wikipedia. Fails WP:CORP for lack of independent coverage. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geniusology[edit]

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

A neologism coined by Andrei Aleinikov, article author has no history other than writing about and linking to the work of Aleinikov. Most of the sources for the article are Andrei Aleinikov, some are "independent" in the sense that directories you pay to be in are "independent". Overall,this looks like a transparent attempt to promulgate a neologism. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Genius. The subject was studied by many researchers, however keeping this page for a non-notable neologism attributed to a single hardly notable author does not make sense. My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- largely WP:OR on a neologism that is not yet encyclopedically relevant. I don't see anything in the article that is suitable for merging to Genius; any such content would be WP:UNDUE is the suggested target. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge. Nominator's description looks accurate to me. Merging this content into Genius would be a disservice to that page. — Gpc62 (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claws. Confessions Of A Cat Groomer[edit]

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

Sources do nothing to suggest it meets the criteria of WP:NBOOK. Nothing else on WP:BEFORE search suggests notability either. Jack Frost (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't establish notability, they mostly relate to cats in general not the book. A recently created article that looks like an advert. Will reconsider if someone comes up with a good ref. Szzuk (talk) 16:52, 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 keep. Sandstein 07:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Catanzaro[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Article is entirely promotional content that has been removed. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in actual fact, all of the sourced content was removed, which is clearly the wrong way of going about things. I've restored the sourced information, some of which clearly had useful secondary citations. A decision at AfD should be made before the article is summarily killed. Sionk (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, on the basis of the sources already found and incorporated. Catanzaro suffers for being largely a collaborative artist and group participant, but the review (for example) by Artforum singles her out from 47 participating artists. Chances are there may be other sources in Italian, Hebrew or Arabic which will be more difficult to find. Sionk (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the Artforum item is better than a passing mention, but it is still a very small paragraph.198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)— 198.58.171.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Neutral I went through the current version and checked the references. I deleted two refs where her name did not even appear in the refs. To other refs were a little better and mentioned her work in basic, but not in-depth, detail. This is a bit borderline, and it is hard to see what is real and what is not based on the excessive COI autobiography editing by the article creator, who had the same page as his/her user page. This is right on the edge, I would be as happy to have it be deleted to have it kept.198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found more sources and added them. There is a lot of discussion about her work in reliable sources so I'm saying she passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the great work done by Megalibrarygirl in finding in-depth sources on this person and their work. Sometimes you have to look at non-English sources. --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl and Oakshade. (Sionk & Megalibrarygirl: You have my admiration. I would find it very hard to respond as coolly as you have.) — Gpc62 (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have some real concerns about this article, started by an infrequent editor with 50 edits who also started Land Art Mongolia, Hartslane (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartslane (2nd nomination)), Gayle Chong Kwan, each of them poorly sourced, heavily templated articles. Land Art Mongolia appears to be the only article that links to Cantanzaro.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exhibited at the Rome Quadriennale. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Article has been substantially improved to assert notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources look more impressive than they are. For example, "http://next.liberation.fr" is a three-sentence mention within a very long general article; "Artforum" is a one paragraph review. Megalibrarygirl, which of the sources you;ve added do you regard as substantial coverage.? DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a red herring to note there are some not-great sources when there are several that are in-depth like that of the Italian Artribune and Culturame which go very in-depth about her work and her [28][29] --Oakshade (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is overstuffed with sources that are mere mentions, and with material sourced to the websites of small, non-notable organizations where she participated in a project - these should be removed as primary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Zarrar[edit]

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

doesn't seems to meet WP:GNG. I found a few name checks in RS but nothing else. no in depth coverage on the subject. no notable career. Saqib (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable enough for a stub-article. It is actually the lack of online sources as is the case with many Pakistani articles. Head of Department or Head physician of a notable Institution is significant notability for a stub-article. Wikipedia itself says that most are notable in their field even though the subject is not discussed in detail in secondary sources.Maooz180 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see him passing WP:PROF and I don't think solely being head of a department in an academic institution makes one notable enough to warrant a standalone entry on WP, which include stubs. One still has to pass basic WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see him passing WP:ACADEMIC. It suggests under 'criteria' section: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. The sixth point section suggests if the subject is appointed administrative post at a notable Academic institution. So, i see him passing atleast for stub-article.Maooz180 (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even remote pass of of WP:Prof. Nothing else for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete hospital department heads are not default notable. I do not think it has ever been agreed that even the overall head of a teaching hospital meets the "notable Academic institution administrator" criteria. This is usally interpreted to mean the president of a university. It is never applied to heads of departments, and has never consistently been applied to heads of sub-units of a university, although possible some business schools, law schools and medical schools are notable enough that all heads of them are default notable. A department in a hospital is clearly not enough to make someone notable as an academic, and nothing else here suggests the subject is notable as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a word on this issue. I found User:Johnpacklambert's comment most interesting. Its true that Head of Department is not the biggest aministrative post, but it is the second biggest post after presidency/principal of a medical institute. Secondly, its not just about a high post but also about reliable sources connected with the high post. The subject is featured by secondary sources. And lastly; I respect the views of my fellow wikipedians as the 6th point in criteria section of WP:ACADEMIC is subject to interpretation. My fellow wikipedians agree with a subject being notable if he's a principal/president of a notable institution provided he/she has RS. But my question is, that why cannot Head of Departments(which is also a rare administrative post) of a notable institute be featured atleast for a stub article, provided they also have RS. When we compare sports,music,arts figures with academic figures, the later is always met by strict boundaries for notabitiliy whereas there are sportsmen on wikipedia that have only played 1 international match. Examples: Alex Silvestro(Stub-Class), Andy Ganteaume(GA-Class), Charles Marriott(Start-Class). In otherwords; why cannot we make a lighter interpretation of the 6th point for academic figures? Maooz180 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROF, not notable as a professor, not notable as the head of department. Natureium (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:PROF as already mentioned above and below analysis. The reference are nether referring to his life nor a coverage of his life. Ref 5 mentioned his education, this reference every cardiologist can have it. Even semi skilled lab assistant can be mentioned on website as long as he's employed. This also applies to Refs 2, 3 and 4 which are all PRIMARY including place he works. The first Ref from Daily Times is mere mention, when you are quoted such one-off time in the press doesn't mean automatic ticket for Wikipedia article. That said, there's no WP:SIGCOV of this "assistant professor" in reliable, independent sources, therefore doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Australian Football League coaches[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons stated below:

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

Falls a bit into Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:Listcruft. Doesn't really serve any purpose outside of what's available in each AFL season article, i.e. 2017 AFL season#Club leadership. Relevant information such as seasons as coach, winning stats, other clubs coached, club as player etc. are (should) all be available at each coaches Wiki page. No references on page to establish notability for why it should be a standalone page, and I honestly cannot think of any ref that would be applicable to how article should be a standalone list. Flickerd (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My response may contain a bit of WP:OTHER but it seems that the nomination is mainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Indiscriminate doesn't apply - the lists are completely defined and limited in scope. It allows the user to compare each coach (not available on individual coach pages) and see previous positions, years in the job etc which aren't relevant to put in the current season article. Listcruft is an essay, not a policy and I'm not sure which of the 12 points is infringed. And to my Other Stuff argument... almost every other league in the world has a list like this: List of current National Basketball Association head coaches, List of current NCAA Division I FCS football coaches, List of current NCAA Division I men's basketball coaches, List of Major League Soccer coaches (not just current, includes all-time list too), List of current National Football League head coaches and List of current Premier League and English Football League managers. The-Pope (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not at all WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but just my interpretation of what was linked to in the original nomination and notability considering the current articles have zero refs. I've had a look at List of current Premier League and English Football League managers which is a WP:FL and I'm open to withdrawing the nomination (may wait a few days first to see other !votes first just in case) if people believe the AFL pages can emulate that page, for example, I do think that some of the information in the list is still excessive which are available on each coaches Wiki page (i.e. assistant coach club/player club) and the list should solely focus on their current role as a senior coach of the club (which all of the listed examples only focus on current role as senior coach), and not entail their whole career. Flickerd (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any Wikipedia policy being violated, and these are two useful and notable lists. The extensive data in each does not duplicate any other collected/list material on Wikipedia. The Women's list is particularly helpful. If citations are desired, add citations. SunChaser (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per my secondary comment and precedence of other sport lists, with the lists needing to be improved (which I aim to do). Flickerd (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a bit late but anyway, funny that the nominator doesn't cite WP:LISTN - "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,...", i wonder if there are any out there in gsearch land, oh heres one, after a less than 30second search - "Rating the AFL coaches in 2017: Asleep at the wheel or in cruise control?" from The Age, and another from Sporting News - "AFL coaches pressure index: Who's safe and who's in the gun?". Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 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 07:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Benedict[edit]

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

This guy is a high school coach, it does not seem like he is notable, also there are no references

Delete it takes an awful lot of coverage to make a high school coach notable, and we just do not see that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It I'll surely require extraordinary situation for High school coach to be notable and isn't the case here. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage.. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Kluge[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress and/or physician. Quis separabit? 03:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just plain not notable in either career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Quis separabit?, are you sure you want to proceed with this? It's a famous German actress and possibly one of the most decorated people in the history of Wikipedia to stand for deletion. A momentary lapse of reason? You do need to look left and right before you nominate an article. For this actress you do not need to look far at all. gidonb (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Deutscher Filmpreis Best Actress winner up for AfD??? The star of the German Film Award for Best Fiction Film winner Yesterday Girl is not in any way "just plain not notable." Just a 5 second search shows very in-depth coverage from the likes of Die Zeit and Der Tagesspiegel. [30][31]. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung called her "die Ikone des Jungen Deutschen Films" ("the icon of the New German Cinema").[32] I can't imagine the nom nor the delete voter above having adhered to WP:BEFORE. Might this be a case of systemic bias? This has got to be one of the most ill-informed and, quite frankly, embarrassing AfDs I've seen.--Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More indepth biography in German and in English. The version of this article on dewiki is also well written and sourced, it can be used to expand this greatly. I tagged it for that. An aside: I don't see much wrong from the nom, sometime these kind of articles linger for several years unremembered in a shoddy state until this kind of situation ignite the desire of improving them, as I am sure now it will be at least better than it was. Notwithstanding this, I believe WP:BEFORE is very important. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know she has an article in German Wikipedia but discerned no notability in the English-language version,

HOWEVER;

UPON THE ADVICE OF FELLOW WIKIPEDIANS, NOMINATION IS WITHDRAWN. Quis separabit? 22:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quis separabit?, you're confusing notability with references. These are apples and oranges. There were few references. Even if there are no references, it does not make a person non-notable. We have a whole set of rules for notability. gidonb (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quis separabit, not being able to discern notability in the English-language version of a topic known primarily in a non-English speaking country is every reason to hold off on AfD and at least perform a simple cursory search either by google or even just clicking on the German language version. An important part of countering systemic bias is not automatically deleting or AfD-ing articles of primarily non-English topics simply because the current condition of the English-language version doesn't obviously show notability at brief glance. In this case, being the star of the very critically acclaimed Yesterday Girl should've been enough to give pause to AfD to even the most enthusiastic deletionist. --Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nomination withdrawn. For material for future expansion, see the German page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Kluge Carrite (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Ammarpad's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Pepper[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable living person. Quis separabit? 01:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that an article on a local newspaper journalist with absolutely nothing even close to a claim to notability has existed for over a decade shows we need better monitoring of article creation in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Not sufficiently noted for a WP article. gidonb (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Creepypasta#Video game creepypasta. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petscop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A "creepypasta" Youtube series about a fictitious video game. While there are links to mainstream sources that discuss the series, I'm unsure of its notability and feel a full discussion is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CSD G4 was declined with the note "Substantially different than the previous version and contains reliable sources that weren't previously considered in the deletion discussion. Try AfD again if you think its not notable." power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: I think that the sources given are enough, to be honest. The series is popular and notable, there's really no way to express that other than saying just that. I know it's sort of like giving a Work Cited page as "it is known", but that's just what I think. CipherCraft618 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Creepypasta#Video game creepypasta. Although it is covered in what might be considered some reliable sources, they're limited (Playground and AVClub and maybe others stem from the Kotaku story) and a few are rather subjective (The Bustle lists, the New Yorker story). It thus doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, but it's not a delete either — a couple of solid paras (minus the episode guide and the Original Research) at the proposed target appear warranted. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit too much text to merge with anything, though. There's certainly enough content to keep it as its own page. CipherCraft618 (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But a lot of what's there is Original Research or recap, and secondary coverage is limited (I count 2 clearly independent stories -- Kotaku and New Yorker -- with Bustle a list, AV Club and MXDWN re-reporting Kotaku, and GamePro and Playground almost probably re-reporting Kotaku due to the timing). Anyway, I've just created the proposed paragraphs, which would have had to have been done regardless of whether the article is kept or not. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Already deleted once. The support for this article is incompatible with any definition of encyclopedia I know. Rhadow (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two proponents of the article here, CipherCraft618 and AntiGravityMaster who argue that the article needs to stand alone because it is so long. An AfD is an argument over notability, not length. It should be edited boldly and merged. Half of the entries in this AfD are from two fans. That's not enough to sway a consensus. Rhadow (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just arguing length, I also obviously believe it is notable. Are there not enough secondary sources? What is the issue here? AntiGravityMaster (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: They are the same user, CipherCraft618 appears to have gotten a global rename. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining? The article is formatted and written in an encyclopedic way, are you just saying this because it's about a somewhat obscure topic? CipherCraft618 (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources found not enough? We have seven independent (news) sources, and it's undeniable the series is notable and popular. CipherCraft618 (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received enough coverage and speculation on its own, passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to put it into more specific terms, I also agree it passes WP:GNG. It's possible it didn't when this discussion was started, but more sources have been added. CipherCraft618 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Creepypasta#Video game creepypasta. I would vote keep if we remove all the character and per-episode information, but then the article would barely have enough left and would be better as a small paragraph in the creepypasta article instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we remove the character and episode information? Aren't those standard sections for any episodic series? And, again, a merge wouldn't really work given how the page is formatted. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Hydronium Hydroxide's analysis of the sourcing and merged content already written. -- ferret (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not agree that the page passes WP:GNG? If it does, shouldn't the article remain as it is? AntiGravityMaster (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an AFD is to determine that. The non-keep votes essentially argue it does not pass GNG and is not notable enough to stand on its own as an individual article. -- ferret (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creepypasta (though honestly, that list should probably be split off to something like List of creepypastas). The reception section uses weasel words without the sources or evidence of ongoing notability to back it up._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, bit of a harsh citicism, but you're right. I've changed that, using what was writen in Petscop's section on the Creepypasta article. Should be better now. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into to Creepypasta#Video game creepypasta. I created the first AfD, I believe there are enough sources now to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, but still not enough to merit a separate article. I agree with User:Dissident93 that the character and per-episode stuff need to go for the merge to work. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:07, 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 07:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HARDI[edit]

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

I can't find material that makes me believe this organization meets the GNG, or the corp-specific guideline for notability. No useful third-party references of consequence are found in my searches. Mikeblas (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This SPA-written promo piece is misleading. The official name of the organization is HEATING AIR CONDITIONING & REFRIGERATION WHOLESALERS ASSOC, no matter what the website says. It is relatively small: $4 million per year. Rhadow (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete truly a large pile of commercial garbage text that is without references and without relevance for a general encyclopedia. I deleted large chunks of uncited text. Also, who the **** cares about the history of air conditioning manufacturer's representatives? it's truly niche material that is perhaps the most boring stuff I have read on the wiki.198.58.171.47 (talk) 09:15, 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.