< 25 November	27 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 speedy keep. withddrawing, bu perhaps Chris troutman will userify it as he suggested. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made to Stick[edit]

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

Essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I read this book years ago and I can re-work this article. Closing admin, please put this in my userspace if the consensus says delete. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references including brief quotes from three reviews of the book. It meets our notability guideline for books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said it isn't notable -- I think that it is; what I have said is that it's promotional. But if CT wants to userify it, I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When an article about a notable topic contains promotional language, the best solution is to rewrite the article so that it complies with the neutral point of view, not to delete the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it meets our WP:GNG inclusion criteria and it isn't unambiguously promotional, although I think it includes some unnecessary details that could be removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since notability isn't questioned, and perceived issues can be addressed by editing, I don't know why this needed to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very first news hit I got was this Forbes Piece "Chip and Dan Heath first came to national prominence with their blockbuster title, Made to Stick, which made the New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller lists and had a 24-month run on the BusinessWeek list as well." Does anyone have an actual policy based rationale for deletion? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Here are the other best/top lists it was on: [1] (but you'll need to Google to get the original cites). -- Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Not inherently promotional, or so in a manner that requires deletion of the entire page. Also keep per the rationales of Cullen, Anachronist and Michig above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. I note the book was published in January 2007, the article done in April 07, before most of the current refs are dated. But it's all 10 years ago now, & the book was apparently a big seller, so I see no problem. I don't even see that there was much promotional language in the version before the nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's "essentially advertising" then re-write it to make it less so. Clearly no WP:BEFORE was done here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well-known book in its field and now well-cited. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:33, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Clucking Holidays[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Ni5 encyclopaedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable XyzSpaniel Talk Page 23:04, 3 December 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:47, 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. – Joe (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VTI-TEBBAP[edit]

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

not notable. most of the sources are from flickr, one is a map (indicating that ti exists, but not much more), and another from the company website. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought of merging them to their parent article Yanson Group of Bus Companies, but it is already described there in better terms than this stub. So this is just redundant duplication with its unreasonable Flickr and "About us" (self) sources –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 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) 23:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joosep Laiksoo[edit]

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

The subject is only significant for having caused a fatal accident while still a minor. All coverage of him in the media revolves around that one event (WP:BLP1E). Otherwise, he is not a public figure in any way (WP:NPF). There is no coverage of him past 2012, suggesting that there is little ongoing interest in this incident or this individual. There is no coverage outside of Estonia, suggesting the topic lacks the "significant attention by the world at large" required by WP:N.

Car accidents are, unfortunately, routine - even fatal ones. News reporting on them is routine. It falls afoul of WP:BLPCRIME for us to maintain this article on a relatively routine incident involving a non-public person, especially one who was a minor at the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; a clear case of WP:BLP1E. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines as a rally driver. Conviction is not notable either. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:44, 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) 23:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael Hansen[edit]

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

Non-notable author, no biographical sources available to show a WP:GNG pass. Article reeks of promo/COI. I'm unable to find enough reviews of the books in this series to substantiate any claim at passing WP:NAUTHOR - none on GNews or Google, and only two on Highbeam - which, for a series containing 9 books, isn't much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the comment that "Michael Hansen" is a surprisingly common name. Something on a different chap with this name led me to start sourcing the article. Interviews with Hansen have appeared in the (local) Fort Collins Coloradoan after publication of several of his books. His books are published in paperback by a small house that appears to be a real publisher. At least one was reviewed in a book review the name of which escapes me at the moment bu t that reviews novels form small presses. That's the best I can do, and it's not enough. Always happy to reconsider if someone finds WP:RSs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:45, 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 no consensus to delete. Discussion of whether and where to merge is best continued on the talk pages of the relevant articles. – Joe (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risk analysis[edit]

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

Incoherent article. A merge to Risk management was proposed, but I don't see much to merge and people see the article's incoherence as a hindrance to a merge. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposition that this is "incoherent". It is merely complex, and a little jargony. That said, it is probable fine to merge this, probably to Risk assessment. bd2412 T 20:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Risk management - there's something a bit odd about the implied hierarchy of topics between the three articles in play here. Risk management (RM) currently defines itself as risk identification, Risk assessment (RAss), risk prioritization and then action and monitoring. The Risk analysis article says after a bit of hedging that it includes RAss, risk characterization, RM, and so on. The RAss article is better defined and claims only that it estimates quantitative or qualitative risk. I conclude that Risk analysis and Risk management are very hard to distinguish and should be merged. This implies, by the way, that the claim in Risk analysis that it includes RM is incorrect. Both articles are inadequately cited; perhaps the merge will leave a slightly improved and more consistent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, (and I may be wrong) the real problem with the WP's "suite" of Risk articles is that they are Frankensteins of Risk terminologies from multiple practices -- I am unconvinced that merging will improve this mish-mashing. I would rather see a lot of practice-oriented splitting; but that would be a huge amount of collaborative, multi-practice work. I have wondered if what is really needed is Wikipedia:WikiProject Risk? IveGoneAway (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and found one, and do a bit of editing this week and rescue these articles, if you can. I think there is some meat in there, but I can't see that having so much overlap between this pair of articles is anything other than a WP:FORK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That I might just do (found the project). As far as "saving" the article goes, my practice is AS9100, admittedly relatively narrow, but no overlap with the practices in the present article. The first sentence indicates the real problem; "Risk analysis can be defined in many different ways, and much of the definition depends on how risk analysis relates to other concepts.", suggesting a disambi for a number of Risk analysis (practice) articles, and I can concieve of practices that have Risk Assessment, but not Risk Management, much less a Risk Management System, but that is a topic for the Project. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an index, but not a disambiguation page, as these concepts are not ambiguous to each other, per WP:BROADCONCEPT. bd2412 T 03:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why merge to Risk management? Why not Merge to Risk assessment? Even in this article, assessment and analysis are used interchangeably (both are founded on R=L*C). Shouldn't we discuss Merge Qualitative risk analysis to Risk analysis first? IveGoneAway (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Risk assessment is a tightly-defined concept and clearly a 'subroutine' for the other two, which have all-encompassing definitions that are barely distinguishable. See for yourself. As for other articles, recall that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: there are bad articles and WP:FORKs all over, but that's not our concern here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I am not following you; you seem to say here that Risk analysis (quantification of risk under R=L*C, as presently written, ignoring the problematic lead) has Risk assessment as a subroutine. However, the present Risk analysis sections seem a subset of the present Risk assessment (not that that either content is necessarily standard definition for all practices). Moreover, ISO 31000 similarly defines 2.21 Risk analysis as a "subroutine" of 2.14 Risk assessment, the opposite of your argument, if I understand you correctly. ISO 3000 also defines Risk assessment to include risk estimation (which could be Quantitative or Qualitative). I acknowledge that ISO 3000 is not necessarily the definition of risk-related terms for all practices, but it is a standard for some practices. ISO 26262 has Risk "assessment" as the risk estimation (modified formula) and doesn't subdivide to "analysis". Under FAA Order 8040.4 (yes, dated 1998) "analysis" is followed by "assessment". Just merging or deleting Risk analysis will not address how different practices have different definitions, which IMO, is how we ended up with the two Assessment/Analysis articles. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:29, 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 redirected to Master of Business Administration#Admissions criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MBA Admissions Consulting[edit]

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

Article has no references (apparently since at least January 2016) and is a spam magnet. ElKevbo (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's surprising for an article to last this long without any sources whatsoever. A sentence or two of the content could be merged into Master of Business Administration. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: In fact, I've just done that, merged the 2 or 3 relevant sentences in the article to Master of Business Administration#Admissions criteria. I recommend closing this AFD and redirecting this article there. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Works for me! Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 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. – Joe (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Bowen[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG after a search and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our ridiculously over-inclusive inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one who originally prod'ed the article (not sure why that was removed); as noted then, it fails WP:NHOCKEY. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it had been prodded and deleted before. You can't go through prod twice. Has to go through Afd if it has been through the prod process before. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. I saw the note and looked through the page history but didn't see any prod before. Just didn't realize it had been deleted and re-created already. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy the requirements for NHOCKEY or GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:42, 3 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) 22:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Vlasenko[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. This is a translated article and the original version doesn't even cite references other than the few external links which are also here in the English version. Searched News, Books, and Google Search and unable to find anything to establish WP:GNG or WP:BIO. CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any information about him in Russian as well. Only passing references in blogs as owner of some private school in Prague. Failing WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia seems to be the only source available. Notability not established by sources.198.58.171.47 (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Lack of references on Czech version leads me to believe references indicating sufficient notability do not exist in that language either, though I do not speak it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:54, 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 Israeli–Lebanese conflict#Israeli incursions into Lebanon. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace[edit]

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

I don't think this has to be an independent article. Some information may be added to Israel–Lebanon relations, but in general this article does not add anything to what already there. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think an article on this subject, though with a neutral name - e.g. "Israeli overflights in Lebanese Airspace 2007-2017", could be developed - however the current article is a mess - both in terms of NPOV and in terms of the information (focusing on show of force overflights with sonic booms - but not on more significant overflights).Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with renaming/changing the subject/text. Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There could be a section on Israel–Lebanon relations on both sides violations until such a time it is big enough for WP:SPLIT guidelines to apply. - Galatz ^Talk 14:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz, the article was already copied directly from Israeli–Lebanese conflict#Israeli incursions into Lebanon, so it should simply Redirect back where it came from. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A10. This page was created two days ago, that same day it was nominated. 165.91.13.63 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli–Lebanese conflict#Israeli incursions into Lebanon until WP:SPINOUT is satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. None of the incidents are notable enough to warrant a standalone article about Israeli violation of Lebanese airspace. Appropriate for the Israeli–Lebanese conflict article. Merge not needed as information already there. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, at present article state.Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to Israeli–Lebanese conflict.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:24, 3 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) 17:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Siemer[edit]

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

Might not quite fit the category of speedy G10, attack page, because it seems to attack a variety of different entities. But it's clearly advocacy for the subjects POV against the New Zealand court system. Contains numerous allegations at least some of which apparently are BLP violations. I'm asking for deletion as NOT NEWS and NOT ADVOCACY, and if any admin agrees with me about it, a speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No to delete. Seimer is one of but a handful of networked activists getting political imprisonment for fighting endemic corruption in New Zealand. A significant public figure therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.131.46 (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG , per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTADVOCACY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:12, 3 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Record Office[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom has not looked into this carefully enough. This is one of the most significant / longest established record repositories in India, of importance equal to or greater than a county record office in the UK or a state record office in the US. The sources already given appear adequate, although doubtless they could be ~~approved~~ improved. This article was nominated for deletion less than an hour after it first appeared... Eustachiusz (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Being a Records Office, the article subject is mentioned in a number of books, including The Cambridge History of the British Empire.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be (or rather information/volumes held within) widely referenced, including in books 100(+) years old - e.g. [2] [3]. The Tamil Nadu Archives garners quite a few hits as well.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close . Refs are solid as a rock. No point keeping this open. Szzuk (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above one of the largest established record repositories in India and is referenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:27, 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. – Joe (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sartek[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has releases on notable labels such as Sony Music, also reliable sources coverage such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More references here: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-dj-sartek-sarthak-sardana-edm-lifest/1/717366.html and here: https://www.mensxp.com/culture/music/30288-sartek-is-the-indian-music-producer-who-has-hardwell-tripping-on-his-beats.html and here: http://www.hindustantimes.com/music/delhi-based-sartek-getting-rave-reviews-from-top-electronic-artists/story-rzHoPXylEMtkMzUubiqpII.html and here: http://rollingstoneindia.com/sartek-joins-sony-music-worldwide-with-pop-single-jump-right-after-you/ Ross-c (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:41, 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 delete. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaddu[edit]

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

Can't locate any reliable sources with regards to this. At the time I PROD'd, I asked on IRC if any editors familiar with Indian topics could check for sources, and the editor I spoke to (can't recall the name a week later and don't have access to logs currently) didn't locate any either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe we have come to the conclusion that many of these caste/clan stubs are non notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are a substantial number of articles on small castes, they should probably be merged into a single more general article. However, if no sources can be found on the topic at all, delete. bd2412 T 20:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem with that approach is there are rarely any reliable sources about those smaller castes/clans, so merging them doesn't solve the verifiability problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 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. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Lim[edit]

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

no notable judge--normally we include only state judges of the highest level, not trial court�s DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete city and county level judges need a lot more sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trial court judge at the US state level. Does not meet our standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 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 merge to Samsung Galaxy J. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy J7 Pro (2017)[edit]

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

The article(s) are just specific variations of the same model of mobile. Also the content presented in this article is almost the same as it was in Samsung Galaxy J7 (2017) (Dup detector comparison). It is clear content forking, WP:CONTENTFORK. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles listed below were created by the same user, and reason for their listing is same as above. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All these pages are about same product "Samsung J series" models, and were created by same user with slightly different titles. Also many of the sources don't meet WP:RS, and even Manual of Style is not followed. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all these articles with Samsung J - it seems that these are too specific to have their own articles. Vorbee (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above comments.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 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. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Nepryaeva[edit]

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

At this point not notable, does not pass WP:NSPORTS nor WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our riducoulously over-inclusive notability guidelines for spors figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find anything to show that either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT is met. She has never competed at an Olympics, the only coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and statistics, and her highest overall World Cup ranking for a full season is 68. Papaursa (talk) 04:03, 3 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 10:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paknet[edit]

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

Promotional page. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 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. Sandstein 10:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bednar[edit]

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

Pushes the boundary of WP:NBIO - a businessperson involved in some merger transactions, but is it really encyclopedic? The community should have a voice on this. The mergers history seems about as notable as the 1990s bagels sales – not very. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what Johnpacklambert stated. Article's subject is simply non-notable.Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by La giostra (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable with considerable press, I was able to find dozens of references Chamber chamber (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mergers are significant and subject has dozens of citations--FrankTursetta (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject has attained WP:SIGCOV; forget the bagels – his work with Deutsche Boerse, NASDAQ, NYSE and LSE alone is certainly notable and recognized as such in plenty of well established News Orgs. Bienmanchot (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO; has not accomplished anything notable or significant. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to plenty of sources¹ ² ³, M&A Boutiques like Bednar's (ranked #3 among top boutiques of 2017⁴) are doing real damage to Wall Street, gaining WP:SIGCOV along the way. Not to incite WP:OSE, but as cofounder of his firm⁵, even if you ignored his many other significant contributions to the field (see refs on page), Bednar is clearly notable, and ~90% of top boutique founders have entries. This isn't far fetched, and it doesn't warrant the WP:JNN reasoning provided above.--Chamber chamber (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and Comment validates the argument--JAMillerKC (talk) 19:59, 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 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brij Kau Birju[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Multiple reliable sources could not be found. Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 05:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:08, 19 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, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't not meet any of WP:FILM points and lacks sources. This article is the first, and with its mirror only result of search. Of the 3 sources in the article two mentioned the film but not in any detail to assert notability the other is showing error –Ammarpad (talk) 16:37, 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. Sandstein 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opusmodus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Noting one article on musicradar.com, I don't see the in-depth coverage in multiple quality sources normally required to establish notability. Rentier (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opusmodus is a widely used software in academia like the Mozarteum Uni, Utah Uni and others. Opusmodus main goal is to introduce coding systems to education and not creating ad's on media. Wikipedia should put more emphasis on what articles are about and there the quality contribute positively to our culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigmm (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The software exists, but the references don't support much beyond that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete fundamentally for lack of significant coverage to establish notability. Also for covert attempt of promotion against Wikipedia policies. The SPA author has never edited any mainspace page except this article since account creation in 2015. This is enough indicator of what he is here for. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:16, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASEA, LLC[edit]

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

Spammy article based on “sources” that are directories and press releases, nothing substantive, reliable and independent. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much of the article describes and is referenced to standard listing sources which do no more than confirm it to be a trading company. The remainder is about the products that they manufacture and market, sourced to a research paper which predates the company and to routine announcements. Neither these nor my own searches indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The majority of the sources the article cites are press releases from sites like PRNewswire, and per AllyD the citing of a research paper that predates the company is sketchy at best. If we removed all of the content about the drugs the article subject sells, nothing of substance would be left.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the Good Behind the Hood[edit]

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

No coverage for this topic in my searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references work, Google gives nothing beyond a few trivial mentions, and as a campaign run by the UK Youth Parliament I would assume it to not be notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 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 redirect to Weekly Young Magazine. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Paradise[edit]

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

Search for reliable sources only turns up nothing but a couple of announcements on its initial serialization and second volume from natalie.mu, but nothing that reach the level of significant coverage to pass WP:NOTE. Also fails WP:NBOOK alternative criticizer. All other sources on the Japanese Wikipedia are primary. —Farix (t | c) 05:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search found no licensors in other languages. Searching for the katakana mainly resulted in retail links or other non-reliable sources. Unfortunately it seems to be too soon to have an article on this manga as it lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability. Opencooper (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weekly Young Magazine - It seems to have a following on 4chan and other websites, but as it stands, significant reliable coverage in either Japanese, English, or other languages is lacking at this time. Does not appear to have been licensed yet. No prejudice against recreation if more sources about the manga come out and/or if it gets an anime adaptation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weekly Young Magazine as the series is present in a table on the article. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON with only one manga volume out in Japan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:27, 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 Randomeditor1000 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence A. Alexander[edit]

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

No substantial news coverage of professor. Is a college distinguished professor but does not meet other criteria under item 1, item 2, item 3, generally no specific sources that explain notability per. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Randomeditor1000 (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holding a named chair, with "distinguished" in the title, counts for WP:PROF#C5. (Meeting any one of the WP:PROF criteria is sufficient.) The books he's written or co-authored have been reviewed [4][5][6][7] (not always positively [8], but for present purposes, that doesn't matter). This supports a pass per WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A majority of average professors in the field of law have peer reviewed articles, contribute to journals, or, books containing information from their field of interest. Lawyers tend to be prolific in writing and publication because their academic foundation is on opinion, interpretation and application of the law. That alone, does not meet WP:AUTHOR in this context. I don't see what value there is in keeping this article beyond the mere fact it meets criterion #5 as the previous version of this article had multiple issues. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and WP:AUTHOR as above. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. Ross-c (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple works published with university presses. Reviews are mostly likely available. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffin home[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Dicdef, no sourcing found, completely untouched since 2006 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable~~ Redirect to Bedspace apartment: The only article to link to this and use the term is Tung Wah Coffin Home, where the term might be replaceable by "mortuary". The term is, however, widely used in English metaphorically to refer to high density shared housing in Hong Kong[9]~~, but I can't identify a suitable article~~. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the page itself: Not to be confused with bedspace apartment. – Gpc62 (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a valid entry. Coffin Home (義莊) was common in the South China. This kind of establishment is also found in Japan. Please read ja:義荘 in Japanese, zh:義莊 in Chinese, and zh-yue:義莊 in Cantonese. They gives non-English sources for this topic. Source 1, a book 遠藤隆俊「義荘」（『歴史学事典 13 所有と生産』（弘文堂、2006年） ISBN 978-4-335-21042-6. Source 2, an article [10] 張軍. 範氏義莊作為慈善機構何以運轉800餘年. 和訊網. 2013-08-06. Source 3, an article [11] 清代民間慈善事業. 江蘇省財政廳. 2014-09-29. Source 4, a book 唐力行. 商人與中國近世社會. 臺灣商務印書館. 1997: 199. ISBN 9570513993. This topic is ancient and might not attract many researchers to write English articles. But if you search 義莊 on Google, it gives several hundred thousand results. — HenryLi (Talk) 10:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the article was a bit shabby but this is an important type of establishment in East Asian cultures. There are enough reliable sources on it, some of which are cited by the zh and ja versions of this article. I have made a first stab at brushing up the article with a few references. Deryck C. 18:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HenryLi, Deryck C., and common sense. — Gpc62 (talk) 07:08, 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 10:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jawad (Journalist)[edit]

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

No reliable sources. HINDWIKI • CHAT 03:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 03:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 12:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources showing the subject is significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This journalist has no significant coverage, so he fails WP:NBIO. Not to be confused with the British Paralympic powerlifter with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage in sources to meet WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are just to interview and news of the journalist not about him. The author has so far created many of such articles of non notable journalists and reference bomb the lead section in order to avoid suspicion. Just like this Shahad Alshemari too. I think ANI is the best place to deal with this. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear friend Ali Jawad is Journalist From Iraq and i added 13 References in (Arabic).Why do you want to delete the article?--IamIRAQI (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment UserIamIRAQI are the references in Arabic the work of the journalist or articles about him? I'm going to abstain on voting until we know what the references are about.Egaoblai (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Egaoblai (talk) (The references) are Articles about him and there are many references not added (in Arabic) ..Also Shahad Alshemari

Please ask the administrators(( HINDWIKI, Boomer Vial , .John Pack Lambert , Jack Frost and Ammarpad )) to translate the references from Arabic to English(By using https://translate.google.com ) for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamIRAQI (talk • contribs) 16:04, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Grub Festival[edit]

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

No eviodence of any notability. Sources seem to be re-playing press releases and nothing reliable is listed here. Reads like and advertisement even with most of the content removed as overly promotional. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 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 02:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a run-of-the-mill food festival of recent vintage and the coverage in reliable sources consists of routine event listings obviously generated by press releases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Instead of having its own notability, it is relying on other subjects for notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Hyun Ryu[edit]

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

While a great artist, Ki Hyun Ryu fails GNG. I cannot easily find reliable sources about this individual, just Tumblr blogs and Wikia. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing substantial comes up when searched. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 12:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally created it back in 2012 to "fill out" the people making The Legend of Korra. And it turns out that that is a terrible reason to create something. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 16:09, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Spanogle[edit]

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

Entire article (two lines) is a copy violation. Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a copyright violation, the alleged source is using text from the Wikipedia article ("This author page uses material from the Wikipedia article "Joshua Spanogle", which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0"). Hut 8.5 21:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the level of citation needed to establish notability, especially on an article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He seems to have written three medical thrillers which are described here as bestsellers in the United States and sell on Amazon and elsewhere. I believe he meets WP:AUTHOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nominator's stated concern can be fixed but Notability is clear on WP:AUTHOR having both coverage and WorldCat. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Sentience (journal)[edit]

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

A new open access journal first published in 2015 [12]. Covered by only one independent source [13] which might an NPR expert blogger [14]. Psychology Today piece interviews the editor-in-chief and is therefore not an independent source [15] and coverage of this subject is passing mention. Notability is not inherited. Other sources appear to be primary such as the journal website and Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association - the publishing platform for this journal [16].

Very low article citation rate on Google Scholar [17]. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, WP:SPIP, WP:N. Not listed in any selective databases or indexing services - fails NJOURNALS. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia article created and somewhat edited by the editor-in-chief of this journal (see edit history and COI tag). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an apparently predatory journal on a fringe topic. Does not meet the relevant notabililty guideline and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be a predatory journal if it doesn't charge fees? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Will there be an answer? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, many users !vote on numerous AfDs and do not watchlist or closely follow them. If you want an answer from someone, it's generally best to WP:PING them. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to K.e.coffman: A "Predatory Journal" is one that charges authors for publishing (or users for access) but does not provide peer review. Animal Sentience (journal) provides peer review and does not charge authors for publishing (or users for access). (I've written an awful lot about "Fools Gold Open Access journals". It would sure be ironic if I were editing one...) --User:Harnad (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]Anthrozoology: Embracing Co-Existence in the Anthropocene
HSVMA is not the publisher
290 is actually high for the second year of a journal. Calculated as citations per target article, the same way Web of Science calculates it for Behavioral and Brain Sciences, this would yield a journal impact factor of 290/17 = 17 (however they are mostly within-journal citations, because of the open peer commentary feature, so not really comparable with other journals).
True, just as I created the entry for Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 2005. I edit WP non-anonymously, just as I peer review and edit journals non-anonymously. (I think people should be answerable with their names and reputations for what they publish. I know this opinion is not shared at WP, but it's a point of view...) If there is a conflict of interest or a biassed point of view, I think that should be in the open too. (I did large parts of the entries for Open Access too. If I am promoting something, it is openness.) I think that whether I am biassing or distorting or promoting should be judged on the basis of the content, not by my identity. I think my WP entries -- perhaps with the exception of my entries on the decline of democracy under the Orban regime in Hungary -- are all very low key and minimal. --User:Harnad (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've written an awful lot about "Fools Gold OA journals". It would be ironic if I were editing one... I leave it to others to judge whether animal sentience is a fringe topic. Here are a few recent threads in the fringe: Brexit and Animal Sentience,Animal Consciousness/NYU --User:Harnad (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC) updated --User:Harnad (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Not selling anything? You are selling your reputation, you are promoting your position in the academic community. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme: I can only repeat that I edit WP non-anonymously because I think people should be answerable with their names and reputations for what they post. (I know this opinion is not shared at WP, but it's a point of view...) But I think that whether I am biassing or distorting or promoting should be judged on the basis of the content of the entry itself, as it is with anonymous editors, not on the basis of my identity, because I choose to reveal it: Is Animal Sentience (journal) not notable enough for a WP entry? Vote delete. Is the entry inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate? Vote delete. But I don't think an academic journal entry should be deleted as self-promoting merely because the editor of the journal posted it. --User:Harnad (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stevan Harnad. Even if there's not enough coverage for a standalone, coverage, this NPR piece alone would justify a mention on the founder/editor-in-chief's page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Patar knight. There is insufficient independent material for a stand-alone article. Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by nominator). This is a tough nut to crack. The sources presented in this AfD do demonstrate there is some paragraph size independent coverage of articles in this journal. The coverage seems to indicate that this journal carries some authority on animal sentience and its articles are part of the animal sentience debate. However, I am turned off by Mr. Hanard's promotionalism of this journal and his self-promotion (for which one indication is using his biography article title [18] as his discussion signature before recently changing to four tides like the rest of us). This taints the view that this topic might be worthy of a stand alone article.

He has also tried to include mention of the other journal for which he was editor in chief (and that journal's founder) in the first line of this article [19], [20] - which was WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. He may have inside knowledge there is a connection between this journal and the other one, but no RS seems to support this. In any case, this topic may be just barely crossing the threshold for notability based on some coverage in reliable sources.

I predict in time, this topic will easily be seen as a notable journal. However, promotionalism is not required. If there are other arguments for "delete" or "merge", I am interested in reading them. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with changing my ivote to keep. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the thoughtful reassessment by the nominator. The delete !vote by k.e.Coffman leads off with an outright falsehood ("predatory journal") and duffbeerforme mentions nothing but the promotion angle (which I agree leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but by itself doesn't automatically make a page deletable). — Gpc62 (talk) 03:18, 3 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) 09:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Manis[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. All claims to notability uncited or cited with weak sources. Most notability claims added by subject of article. LaMenta3 (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear fail of the general notability guidelines. Nothing adds up to meeting any academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR; has written multiple books published by university presses and widely held: Worldcat identities. For example, Southern civil religions in conflict: Black and white Baptists and civil rights, 1947-1957 is held by 550 libraries. Sample reviews:

Book reviews: American. Hill, Samuel S. Catholic Historical Review, Oct 01, 1991; Vol. 77, No. 4, p. 722-723. Reviews the book `Southern Civil Religions in Conflict: Black and White Baptists and C... more
Blessed Are the Peacemakers/Birmingham Revolutionaries (Book). Fairclough, Adam. Georgia Historical Quarterly, Mar 01, 2002; Vol. 86, No. 1, p. 153-155. Reviews two books. 'Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Martin Luther King Jr., Eight White R... more

Additional reviews are very likely to be available. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:AUTHOR does not explicitly recognize library holdings as a threshhold for notability. Likewise, academic reviews of books, such as those referenced above, are not usually considered when determining wider impact or importance within a field unless those reviews specifically note, discuss, and cite that impact. Citations within other studies or research is a slightly better measure of impact or regard within a field, but is still not a guarantee of notability as an academic or a general author. Broader coverage or proof of substantial impact of these works would be required. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:17, 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 02:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- academic reviews of books, such as referenced above are absolutely considered for notability of authors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely held author, widely quoted in various press contexts, there's a lot more that could be added to the article. GNG met. Jclemens (talk) 08:19, 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 redirect to Hadiqa Kiani#2009: Aasmaan. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aasmaan (album)[edit]

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

Nothing turns up in search except this interview. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively redirect it. Störm (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hadiqa Kiani#2009: Aasmaan and merge any information not already included in that section. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - this seems obvious. Not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, but could be a valid search term, so a redirect to Hadiqa Kiani#2009: Aasmaan is appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As usual with albums that are not individually notable but were recorded by a notable artist.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Seems like the most appropriate route to take. Redirect to Hadiqa Kiani#2009: Aasmaan, and move any information not already included in the article. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 12:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a single from the album is described as a 'hit'. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/23/world/la-fg-what23-2009dec23 while it is difficult to find information about this album, that is true for many notable musicians from countries outside of the main western countries. I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss these albums as non-notable, when it appears difficult to search the Pakistani music charts. I think finding someone who can confirm the chart placings (or lack thereof) should precede deleting any of this artist's album's articles. Ross-c (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we should have an article about that hit single. Notability isn't inherited — just because one song may be notable doesn't make the whole album notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffin home[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted. Coin945 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Diegos[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted Coin945 (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially unique[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted Coin945 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty (video game)[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted Coin945 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grind rail[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted Coin945 (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flavored syrup[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted Coin945 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Dale Brown novels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted. Coin945 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Babis[edit]

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

Lack of notability. She was a candidate in elections but didn't pass. Nominated for an award, but didn't get it. No secondary sources cited and most consist of her own work. Emesik (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Artkomiks and Artystki Lublina are secondary sources, for example. The interview (in a major newspaper) also has a short intro about her aside from the interview itself. Is publishing webcomics internationally and has had quite a few publications in Poland. Also, her comics have been mentioned by notable publications around the world like The Post Italiano, The Canary, Tanzania's Daily News, Huffington Post, Bustle, Metro.Ausir (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete intros to interviews do not count towards being indepdent, secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not the only sources used in the article. Ausir (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a cursory look at the sources seems to indicate at least basic notability.198.58.171.47 (talk) 07:04, 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 speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candle warmer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page has been unreferenced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted. Coin945 (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantes a palo seco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

'Page has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted. Coin945 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Wildside[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

'Page has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted. Coin945 (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. An article lacking sources does not automatically equate with non-notability. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Channabasavanna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

'Page has been unsourced since 2006. Should be improved or deleted. Coin945 (talk) 01:30, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Weir: Poems by Peter Dickinson[edit]

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

Self-published book - does not seem notable. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:GNG; fails 1-3 of WP:NB and may fail 4 and 5. Tacyarg (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Dickinson is definitely notable, this book of poetry is not, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, extremely low print run, tiny number in world libraries (5), no reviews found with a gsearch (only mentions in obits), only 1 mention on Dickinson website, but possibly a redirect? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yarra Yarra Rowing Club[edit]

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

A PROD was reverted without improvement. This article has been a COPVIO from the club's website. The SPA who wrote it found no reliable independent sources since 2008. It appears on social media sites including Yelp, but no independent reliable sources even today. No value to WP to replicate the promotion from the club's site. Rhadow (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by a single purpose account, and my searches online didn't reveal anything worth writing about other than the promotional content already in place. Its already listed at List of rowing clubs in Australia which is a minefield of red links in itself. -- Longhair\^talk 11:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 11:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable for what it was in the 19th century rather than what it is today. See e.g. coverage in Trove. Comfortably passes the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a lot of the TROVE content is routine sports events results reporting, there are many thousands of hits, it should be possible to write a more in-depth article. There are hits on annual general meetings, coaching staff and policy, etc. SPA creation - yes - but a single one off edit, and it has had a few editors since. The declined PROD was only yesterday - they might come back? Overall regardless of article ancestry seems to be more than enough WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more than 100,000 Trove hits and the historical interest going back a century and a half make this a keep, in my opinion. Article obviously needs some care and citations. SunChaser (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is about 90% copyvio, which I think someone will be along shortly to rev-delete.198.58.171.47 (talk) 22:03, 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. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MasharHamsa[edit]

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

It's quite rare for a film industry costume designer to achieve notability, and this one might be notable but I doubt it. There's good coverage in The Hindu plus a couple of interviews. It's hard to see how WP:CREATIVE criteria are met. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good coverage in The Hindu plus a couple of interviews here: https://www.magzter.com/article/Lifestyle/FWD-Life/Stitching-His-Way-To-Success and here: http://www.fwdlife.in/tag/mashar-hamsa (although I only found that one interview) seem just enough to me. Ross-c (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: The criterion for inclusion is multiple independent reliable sources. Interviews are primary sources and don't count toward notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good article about him in Malayala Manorama. http://www.manoramaonline.com/style/glitz-n-glamour/interview-with-costume-designer-mashar-hamsa.html NK 17:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC) — Nabeelkallayil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Interviews are not independent coverage, they are considered primary sources, and don't count toward notability. You have a COI about this, you apparently know the guy, based on your contributions about closely related subjects. Do you have anything else? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he done 10 more filmes and his profile avilabile in IMDB[21]. also he have large fan base (https://www.instagram.com/masharhamsa) 01:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — Nabeelkallayil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
IMDB is user-generated content and cannot be used to determine notability. See WP:RS/IMDB for more information. An instagram profile also doesn't show notability. He has "followers" not necessarily fans. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not count towards the needed multiple reliable source 3rd party indepdent secondary source coverage. The Hindu article might, but it is one not multiple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for many reasons. His profession is subset of film/director. I can't remember seeing any article about other film costumiers because they're generally non notable and work under direction of film directors, who themselves majority don't pass WP:DIRECTOR. For him to deserve an article he must, of course, show undoubteful recognition by several independent sources and such sustained coverage for years not just one mention about film he helped in production. And this is virtually absent noe except few interviews of few questions which don't count as solid secondary sources. In short he didn't meet WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG, perhaps in the future –Ammarpad (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similar (Costume designer) article available in wiki. Sameera Saneesh from malayalam films, Ritu Kumar from hindi NK 01:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument for keeping an article. Each article stands or falls on its own merits irrespective of what else might exist on Wikipedia. In any case, Sameera Saneesh won awards and has multiple independent sources giving her far more coverage than MasharHamsa. Ritu Kumar is a fashion designer, not a costume designer, but also has more coverage than MasharHamsa. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:18, 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ulaga Tamil Sangam[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:ORG. Little to no depth of coverage, or independence of sources.~~ Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AfD as nominator. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 02:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boomer, my assessment of sources show that the Ulaga Tamil Sangam is better known as the World Tamil Sangam. It was originally proposed by a legendary political leader in India, M. G. Ramachandran;[22][23][24] and later got its building allocated as a museum complex.[25] Now their center in the city of Madurai, inaugurated by another Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, is even considered one of the top tourist destinations.[26] It has been very well covered by various news and media reports: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Most probably, you might have missed the Ulaga > World translation. I did too initially, but was fortunate to understand it on subsequent analysis. I propose we Keep the article and future editors can add further contents, considering the clarification I've provided. Do you think that works? Warmly, Lourdes 14:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Yep. Works for me. Withdrawn, and struck-out. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 02:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer thanks. Have a nice night, Lourdes 02:10, 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.