< 3 November	5 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 redirect to National Capital Region (India)#Regional planning. Seems like we have a consensus in favour of a redirect at least. The deletion policy says nothing against using AfD for a redirect outcome, in fact it is listed as a possible outcome of a deletion discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Capital Region Planning Board[edit]

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

Everything here is covered already by National Capital Region (India). Batternut (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Capital Region (India)#Regional planning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per The Bushranger. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Capital Region (India) for now. I am unable to research much at the moment, but in the future, it may be possible to create a separate article about the planning body itself. Till that time I can agree with a merge.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually see anything in the article which is worth keeping and that the National Capital Region article doesn't have. The jurisdiction table is out of date. Batternut (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wrong venue As per WP:Deletion policy, content discussions belong on a talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sperry[edit]

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

Self-promotional stub about a figure who is lacking in references from reliable sources. In the absence of such sources, there is little reason for the stub to remain as an article, especially amid repeated mass removals of unsourced sections for self-promotion. The only significant expansions to the page have been made by IP single-purpose accounts, and there is no reason for the article to exist in my view in the absence of these reliable sources and possible violations of BLP policy. (First attempt at AfD, apologies if formatted incorrectly). Stormy clouds (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability criteria for a magician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any SNG for magicians — not that that matters, since he clearly passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough evidence in reliable sources to establish his notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look? It took me about two minutes on the first page of a Google query. Carrite (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much to my surprise, this appears to be a GNG pass. HERE is a piece from the Great Falls Tribune, including an interview. And THIS is a feature story on him in the Pioneer Press from Minneapolis-St. Paul. And ANOTHER article on him, this from the Las Vegas Review Journal. That, my friends, fits the definition of multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject — which is what we are looking for at AfD. Passes GNG. "Marilyn Manson meets David Copperfield," one of those calls him — that seems about right. Don't get tripped up on the IDONTLIKEIT and DOESNTSEEMNOTABLE AfD missteps... Carrite (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sources provided by Carrite above: local two bit press pieces are not enough to meet the GNG in my book, and some of those are primary sourcing as well (interviews), so they don't count towards the GNG anyway. He also certainly doesn't meet WP:ENT, which is what I suppose those above are arguing for when they discuss the subject notability guideline. I'll throw in my standard critique of the GNG in here where we read it to mean that someone where the available sourcing makes clear they shouldn't be included because of how insignificant they are actually means they should be included. Nothing here suggests that the subject is important or notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in a variety of sources passes WP:RS and WP:GNG. Articles include the NY Times,[[1]], Boston Globe,[[2]], OC Register,[[3]] OC Weekly,[[4]] Twin Cities Pioneer Press [[5]], Sioux City Journal [[6]] and Fast Company [[7]]. I disagree that interviews are ineligible to use as primary sources, since they are the basis for much biographical info that may otherwise not be included in articles. I started a discussion on the No Original Research talk page [[8]] to get some clarity on this issue. Check it out if you have an hour to kill. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources brought forward in this discussion are sufficient to establish notabilty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the "he meets GNG though it doesn't seem like he should" crowd. On the other hand, the page on his group The Illusionists is nearly at WP:TNT quality. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 10 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. SK1: withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Curtis (American politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL on two levels - being mayor of Provo is not a significant office and simply being a candidate for a more significant office is not enough. John from Idegon (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has existed for more than 7 years at this point and faced a prior proposal for deletion. It was kept and now the subject's stature has only grown, as he will probably be elected to Congress on Tuesday (UT-3) is one of the most conservative districts in the country with a PVI of R+25. Why not wait to make a decision either way until after the special election? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 22:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - apologies, I missed the previous discussion, altho absent victory in the special election, I may renominated. A city of that size is no longer considered an automatic pass on Notability. John from Idegon (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- JocularJellyfish, I haven't the time to close this at the moment. If you know how, feel free. John from Idegon (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that Curtis's notability goes beyond just the size of Provo. Provo is the 2nd most prominent city in Utah, and Curtis is a regionally prominent politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cantwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No external references - only to his own works, a blog, and a deadlink to medline. Doesn't appear to be notable as a medic Rathfelder (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of the fields of medicine plagued by promotionalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from the article "More recently, he has written conspiracy theory articles on the origin of HIV", and this isn't well-sourced enough for a WP:FRINGEBLP. In fact there are no references at all, only external links to related topics and articles by him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unni Lalu[edit]

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

Actor who is not notable at this point in time with no coverage in RS. Fails GNG and has only had a brief appearance in a questionably notable film. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, and per WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB cannot be used as reference and we would need some more sources like the second one, but still I believe its WP:TOOSOON. Excelse (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Morningstar[edit]

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

Geologist lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, the page doesn't establish any sort of notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:PROF. Had she been a fellow of the National Academy of Sciences it'd be slam-dunk for PROF, but she was elected a fellow of the Ohio Academy of Science. She was a dues-paying member of AAAS, not a fellow. I can't find enough documents about her to presume notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geologist Helen Morningstar membership to AAAS and the National Academy of Sciences is listed under her married name and not maiden name. Helen Morningstar Lamborn, Fellow of Section C. Included in the Ohio Academy of Science Membership List 1940 and the Annual Report of the Ohio Academy of Science 1952, page 235 url=https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/3954/v52n04_229.pdf?sequence=1 tjwigmor (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tjwigmor: You are mistaken. That's the single source provided in the article, I read it, and my assertions stand. Neither the National Academy of Sciences nor the AAAS lists her as a fellow. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tjwigmor:The source you cite refers to her being a "Fellow of the Academy of Science". Taken in the context of the source itself being an annual report of the Ohio Academy of Science, it seems clear that the source refers to her being a Fellow of the Ohio Academy of Science rather than an elected member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I don't believe we have any sources indicating that she was the latter, and it is unlikely to have been the case. It also does seem that she was an ordinary dues paying member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science rather than an elected Fellow of AAAS. Nsk92 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack evidence that she meets any academic notability criteria. If it could be shown she was an elected fellow of a sufficiently notable society this would change, but we need a source that shows this to keep the article, which we do not have at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. It is wonderful to know about women scientists from that time, but she does not meet academic notability and there doesn't seem to be any in depth material published about her. tjwigmor, see this page in your course materials. Articles need to be about people who are already well-known as demonstrated by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." StarryGrandma (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I cannot see a claim of importance. On line search show up the sellers of publications she wrote, and an occasional citation. But nothing beyond a passing mention. Her name could get a mention in an article on Ohio Academy of Science. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all said above, fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 11 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 Chiodos discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Way to Ruin Your Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chiodos

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

The article is completely unsourced and lacking in any evidence of notability. It contains only very basic track listing information, with no commentary by music critics, no indication of charting, and no other indication of notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chiodos discography. Inadequate article with no sources found that could fix that, but did this really need to come to AfD? --Michig (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted, it survived a previous deletion discussion. Isn't an AfD the proper approach in that situation? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The previous AfD keep was largely as a reaction to an ill-conceived attempt to delete the articles on the band and all their albums. The previous AfD didn't, as far as I can tell, identify any sources about this album. Per WP:ATD, I don't really see why deletion would be considered preferable to a redirect, and unless a redirect has been attempted and reverted, it doesn't have to come back to AfD. --Michig (talk) 19:06, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Bernard[edit]

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

Poorly referenced and no indication that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) as either musician or composer. Also seems to be WP:COI - see Talk:Frederic Bernard. Derek Andrews (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unkle Nancy[edit]

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

Completely and utterly non-notable musician with absolutely no coverage in RS or otherwise to be found. Fails the bare minimum of WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. The only source I could find was a passing mention in a local publication. Meatsgains (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some coverage in reliable sources ([9], [10]), but only in newspapers local to the subject. --Michig (talk) 08:02, 5 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. Seems like we don't have a firm consensus for or against the sources establishing GNG notability. The uncontested NBAND argument carries it for the keep side. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Was a Cub Scout[edit]

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

Non-notable "band" that hasn't charted (or at least not supported by an sources I can find) and has no coverage in RS. Fails WP:GNG and pretty much every other standard. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources. NME, The Guardian, The List, Allmusic, etc. And two albums on XL Recordings that is also a pass of WP:NBAND. Try using Google. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michig could you please provide them? I'd be glad to withdraw my nomination with adequate sourcing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NME: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

The Guardian: [16], [17]

Allmusic: [18], [19]

The List: [20]

rockfeedback.com: [21], [22]

Gigwise.com: [23], [24], [25], [26]

BBC: [27], [28], [29]

Clash: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

PopMatters: [35]

DIY: [36]

Bopurnemouth Echo: [37]

The Skinny: [38]

Drowned in Sound: [39]

No doubt there are more out there if one digs deeper. --Michig (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a source for the chart placing (the OCC only put top 100 on their website): [40]. --Michig (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets ~~the GNG~~ WP:BASIC, as per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you about the sources. I'll break it down:

NME: #2 is a listing/run of the mill, same with 3, 4 is a tour announcement, 5 is an interview.
Guardian: Neither are what I would consider significant coverage from an independent reliable source.
Allmusic: neither are coverage
The list: a review from a website with no editorial oversight, so not exactly coverage. Basically equivalent of a blog.
Gigwise: not even remotely considered an RS - it's literally rehashing of "press releases" and the band asking fans for things.
BBC: First two are interviews, last one is a press release.
Clash: Every single one is an announcement

The rest follow this pattern with maybe one exception of a review, none of which meet our notability standards.

All of these things could be used to support an article if the article were based on actual coverage in independent reliable sources, which is what is lacking here.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Chrissy, I think your analysis of the sources above is nonsense. --Michig (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michig What about it is nonsense? 90% of what was listed in those sources are press releases, interviews and announcements. None of which are coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NME: 4 news items and an album review (it even helpfully states 'Album Reviews' at the top), The Guardian coverage is both significant and in a reliable source, both Allmusic sources are coverage, The List is not a 'blog', its the website associated with a print magazine, Gigwise.com is a reliable source - there are two reviews listed that are certainly not rehashes of press releases, the third BBC source is a review (it even has 'Review' in the title), not a 'press release'. Some are news items based on information passed to them - such is the nature of news. The fact that magazines like the NME and Clash see fit to include these as news items differentiates the band from most. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And we delete many other things for more. In particular Gigwise is not RS and it is most certainly not WP:COVERAGE it's literally directly from the band/WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Just because there are reviews doesn't make them significant and doesn't make the source reliable. BBC introducing covers thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of bands that are definitely not notable. It's like having an MTV profile...anyone can do it. NME in particular is useless for determining notability because it's basic information, the equivalent of a press release without the words "press release." Please see WP:COVERAGE. This fails every standard we have and simply having reviews of an album from some random niche websites with no editorial oversight is meaningless. I'd say in this entire list only 2 items might be useful as independently reliable sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding AllMusic, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, where it states, "Biography/reviews are fine, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose. Don't use review score when review is not present, or mention the "Album Pick" designation." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok. I'm not wasting any more time trying to change your mind. --Michig (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple examples of coverage in reliable sources identified above; subject meets WP:BAND criteria 1, 2, and 5. gongshow talk 07:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments here were between the policy on not being an indiscriminate collection of information and our guidelines for spinning off separate articles and continuing coverage for notability. While the arguments for deletion were policy based, a consensus did not emerge in this conversation that the list was an indiscriminate collection of information, and a consensus did emerge that it is currently viewed as a valid spinoff article that has received continued coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting[edit]

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

Another list of condolences and condemnation. As with other quote farms that have been nominated and deleted, I argue that is not an indiscriminate directory of information and synthing several quotes is in no way encyclopedic. Considering the parent article sufficiently summarizes what this lists says over and over, the purpose for this page has run out awhile ago. Certainly, it has already served its purpose of keeping unimportant reactions off the main page while the event was regularly in the news. And with certainty, I can say the incident is without a doubt notable but remember we are not discussing the shooting itself; anything associated with it is not inherently notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A scrupulously referenced (117 inline cites), well-researched and detailed accounting of international reactions which is not easily obtainable anywhere else and aids those studying differences in how world entities view specific phenomena of this nature. If there is contention that such lists of reactions should not exist, then this should have been a mass nomination of all entries at Category:International reactions or, to go even further, Category:Reactions. If, on the other hand, the contention is that the other events are more notable than this event or that the structures of the other "Reaction" articles are more adroitly formed than the structure of this article, then we should be made aware of any deficiencies, so that needed improvements may be made. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't clearly aid those studying "differences" in how countries react to such incidents. I admit that I haven't read the reactions of all 84 countries and territories listed here, but all the ones I read either condemned the attack, expressed condolences for the victims, or both. (Even Iran, whose condemnation appears to have been less than whole-hearted.) Regarding the idea that lists of reactions like this should not exist, I have tended to support deletion of such articles, although such articles do have their supporters and some of them have been kept at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings (deleted, 28 September 2017) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack (no consensus, 26 August 2017) for two recent examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet WP:LISTN. Consists of WP:PRIMARY materials – the reactions themselves, which are routine and do not stand out in any way. No encyclopedic relevance. Similar articles have been deleted in the recent past, such as:

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact other articles have separately been found to not warrant inclusion is not grounds for why this article does not warrant inclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate quote farm of boiler plate condemnations. Charlie Hebdo shooting#Reactions covers this amply. As may be seen in the article history, the reaction article is mainly a collection of news clippings from around the shooting - and then minor gnoming.Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced/sourced article. Extensive reactions. One could claim that they are merely quotes, I say important reactions to an important historic event. The quotes are not routine but responses from world leaders and prominent politicians about an historic incident. BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was actually on the news recently. Almost every article beginning with "International reactions to..." has now been to AfD, and hundreds (ok at least 50) have been kept, with only half a dozen deleted, I think that speaks for itself really. you may want to see WP:Reactions to... articles as well. I suppose some people don't like people condemning terrorist attacks, but I think these are important. Dysklyver 16:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:Reactions to... articles is an essay, and it lists more than 6 of these articles that have been deleted (not all of which had their titles start with "International"). That essay does not specifically endorse keeping or deleting such articles. And when you say "I suppose some people don't like people condemning terrorist attacks ....", I'm not sure what you are implying, but that could be read as suggesting that the opponents of this article are against condemnation of terrorist attacks, which would be an extremely inappropriate mischaracterization. What the opponents of this article are against is a list along the lines of "The leader of Afghanistan condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Albania condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Algeria condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Andorra condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. ... The leader of Zambia condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Zimbabwe condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, when you say "this was actually on the news recently", can you provide context as to what "this" is and how it appeared on the news? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver you yourself have !voted to delete "Reactions to..." articles exactly like this one. Care to explain why this one is suddenly different? Your rationale didn't apply an actual policy-based argument so it's hard to decipher why you have changed your stance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Incoming wall of text. to answer the questions put to me.

Metropolitan90's first comment, which mistakes the nature of my comment, asks by implication if my original comment is "suggesting that the opponents of this article are against condemnation of terrorist attacks", to which I can only say that although I did not write it to that effect (obviously!), I am not too worried if you take it that way, since that is possibly relevant (especially so if thats what you thought after reading it).

The essay was linked as a neutral source of information, I don't see how "you may want to see WP:Reactions to... articles as well." equates to thinking it was policy. Its main relevance is the amount of related information it includes.

The issue of all the African leaders using the same statement is a matter for article cleanup, you know as well as I do that there was massive and varied response both at the time and subsequently from many people, organisations, police forces, and leaders, much of which has not been expanded on to its full potential in this article.

It was the BBC news channel, I can't remember which day, but it was recent, and they were talking about peoples reactions to the Charlie Hebdo event, they had some people on talking about it, they said about how tragic it was and talked about the victims families and such. This influences my personal opinion as to the enduring relevance of recording what was said, this encyclopedia is after all supposed to be the sum of all relevant knowledge.

To answer gracefulslick, I was at first supportive of the general idea, on the premise nothing was being lost as it was unnecessary to have an extra article when the content was in the main one etc etc, all very convincing arguments. However I have come to the opinion that trying to merge these things back into articles which are already to long is not helpful and doesn't work, sure you can say "all the worlds leaders were very upset and expressed condolences for the victims" but that does not give the depth of knowledge that can be shown in a separate article. In the instances where these articles have been deleted, the knowledge has been effectively lost, along with any chance of meaningful expansion. Additionally I have realised that a "Reactions to..." article can actually be expanded beyond a list. It has happened, there are some already, therefore this should be treated as more of a stub framework than a representation of a finished dead-end article of insufficient quality for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

I have realised it is not necessary to cite some WP:THING every time I express my opinion, I can see people have already discussed the guidelines in this discussion, and in many other similar discussions and piling on and parroting is pointless, this is not a vote. It is far more effective in this case to point people to an essay with plenty of information, people can make an informed decision without me having to type it all in here, it even links to many other AfD's, I am aware that precedent is not binding, but given that the nominator and other editors seek to influence the outcome of this AfD with a misstatement on the way past AfD's have resulted it is only fair to direct editors to a more neutral standpoint.

The so called policies (they are actually guidelines) are neither defined nor binding, and are written in a way which can mean almost anything, so editors are literally split down the middle on the meaning of even the most basic concepts. What actually matters is common sense and building a good encyclopedia, and I would highly recommend everyone to always think of WP:5P when considering what these guidelines are actually for. I have pointed out why I think what I think, expressed some possibly useful points, and that is plenty, there are others here actively arguing precedent and policy, claiming 'quote farms' violate this and that, without any obvious grounding in reality or even the common understanding of policy. Dysklyver 20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a well-sourced article. Anything related to the attack and published by reliable sources can be taken into to the article. Considering WP:TOOBIG, we can not take these reactions into the main article and hence we need to keep this one. Btw, it's better to avoid other stuff-type arguments. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This one was a major event that is well sourced here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my opinion to Redirect to Je suis Charlie. The event led to one major notable reaction that were not just grief statements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – major event, well sourced, ample other such articles, legitimate WP:SPINOFF. Point where I slightly agree with criticism: the structure of the article was sub-optimal. Hence I have started improvements. Others are welcome to help out! gidonb (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may be true there has been a proliferation of these articles, with many created perhaps unnecessarily, that is not a valid reason to delete this article. International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting were unprecedented, and probably the most significant since the September 11 attacks. The reactions from newspapers, artists, cartoonists, world leaders, and the public was significant and highly historically notable. The reactions, which included the march in Paris, received significant, in-depth coverage on a global basis. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AusLondonder. It's a well-sourced article and this event comes just below 9/11 and hence is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we cool off on the 9/11 comparisons? For one, we are not discussing the incident itself and secondly it is a tad distasteful. This shooting was obviously terrible but 9/11 is on a whole other spectrum. Saying this incident is "just below" 9/11 -- remember 3,000 killed and over 6,000 wounded -- is a gross exaggeration.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second this comment. 9/11 had a massive body count and triggered the War on Terror, United States invasion of Afghanistan, and quite arguably 2003 invasion of Iraq. Charlie Hebdo was a significant terror attack, led to Je suis Charlie (a long enough article in itself! A reaction we should note), and international condemnations a bit out of the norm (more than usual outpouring of sympathy, some degree of Muslim nation ambivalence due to cartoons of Mohammed etc.). However in the grand scheme of things - there it was one in a chain - and didn't lead to any significant development (yes - France heightened security yes again. Yes - there was also an attack on cartoon drawing in Texas (however there were also attacks prior to Hebdo)). We already have quite a long and comprehensive reaction section in the main article.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this Charlie Hebdo massacre is so important, then why nominate its international reactions article, a valid WP:SPINOFF, for deletion? If the main reason for deletion is that it isn't 9/11 wouldn't that be weak argumentation? Maybe withdraw? gidonb (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb where in my nom statement did you see me mention 9/11; how can you consider it my main reason for deletion? All I asked was for editors to not get carried away with such a comparison.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick Point taken. I think it is best to judge each massacre by its own impacts. The Charlie Hebdo massacre had major impacts, see for example Charlie Hebdo attacks: five ways France has changed. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb can you consider Knowledgekid's !vote for a redirect? The target containd actual notable reactions, not just routine grief statements repeated a dozen times and easily summarized in a brief paragraph. It certainly would address the issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick I've seen it but strongly disagree. One article is for the popular response, the other for the formal response. Both are legitimate spinouts. As I pointed out below both have been proposed for deletion with little support. A simplified look at the more complex relations between the three articles: the fact that Charlie Hebdo attack was immediately perceived to be an important massacre (and a crossroads for the freedom of press, arts, and speech) brought wide popular reactions, strengthening again the importance of the Charlie Hebdo attack. As it came to be seen as such a major event the formal response gained in enduring importance just as well. gidonb (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is anyone seeing WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of international reactions to Charlie Hebdo specifically? Are the Cambodian, Georgian, Greek, Brazilian, or Mauritian referred to by any recent sources?Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to an obvious extent in English sources in countries that are less connected to the incident. But the reactions in Germany, the US, Russia, Britain, Canada, Australia, Syria, Nigeria, Brazil, China, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, etc etc are still getting continued coverage and having lasting impact, and you could be sure that if there was a terror attack in Greece, the Greek response to this Charlie Hebdo incident would be back in the news. It is worth noting a certain amount of cleanup could be relevant to this article, I don't think most the responses from Africa are relevant, and there aren’t enough US and European responses, nor as much as I would like to see written about them. Dysklyver 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well-sourced WP:SPINOFF page of a notable event, where the main page would be too large if the information was all included there.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There might be a good point here that Je suis Charlie is a notable reaction while the generic expected expressions of grief are not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis Charlie was also nominated for deletion. Folks will nominate anything! gidonb (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair - that nom was made on the day of the attack itself before it was clear the slogan would be as notable as it has become - and was closed as a snow keep after it became clear (it actually had some editor support on 7 Jan, but in the following days it was all keep). However, whereas Je suis Charlie has lasting notability (and definitely will be discussed in the future in conjunction with the attack and in relation to other shows of sympathy to other attacks) - the boiler plate condemnations of random foreign ministers/word leaders really do not seem to be covered more than month after the event - these are all collapsed in subsequent coverage to "condemned by almost all world leaders", with notable exceptions noted.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a fad to nominate for deletion expressions of the milk of human kindness. The nominator states in the nomination that the page, "has...served its purpose of keeping unimportant reactions off the main page", which is a statement that there are both unimportant and important reactions in this article. To the extent that there is anything indiscriminate, this is something handled under WP:Editing policy, not under WP:Deletion policy, and a rather ordinary editing problem of WP:DUE. The remedy for those who don't want to read, "France...offer[s] the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers", is: Don't read the article.. Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep well sourced enough, notable event for spin off. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quote farm of routine condolences. Notability is beside the point, this is a matter of WP:NOT - we are not a newspaper and we do not record every world leader's utterances, especially if they are nothing out of the ordinary. Sandstein 09:17, 12 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) 19:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Peas 'N Butter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, fails WP:V written with a WP:Promotion tone as well. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Best coverage I could find: [41], [42], [43]. I'm not sure about the quality of these sources. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Last time this came up for deletion, it was closed as no consensus. I opposed deletion. Here's what I said then [44]. But no one's taken up my suggestion. This version of the article has stood, unrescued. And it's way too promotional. It's not in WP:NUKEANDPAVE territory but still, it doesn't belong any longer. David in DC (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has a lot of puffery and peacock terms in it. Needs to be deleted for various reasons, even if it is for WP:TNT. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor quality sourcing and no improvement since the last AfD, within Wp:TNT territory. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nizams History[edit]

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

No coverage about the topic. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a duplicate of Nizam of Hyderabad, but without any citations. The text is badly written and the title doesn't make sense. Some of the text for example " The Nizams retained internal power over Hyderabad State until 17 September 1948 when Hyderabad was integrated into the new Indian Union." seems to have been copied from the Nizam of Hyderabad article itself. As it lacks citations, I am opposed to merging this. No need to redirect as the title doesn't make sense either.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 10 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 MC the Max#Awards and nominations. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by MC the Max[edit]

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

No need for such list. I don't think we have to list every award. Few ones can be covered on main article and then delete this list. Störm (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm afraid you're confused on process. Merging and redirecting are normal editing processes that don't involve deletion, and which should be attempted prior to invoking AFD. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. So it appears you should withdraw your nomination if this is what you want. postdlf (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MC the Max#Awards and nominations. Awards are notable but this subject is not notable enough. Excelse (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above; the content relating to notable awards/nominations would fit comfortably on the band's main page. gongshow talk 07:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mac Twins[edit]

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

Not much sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the existing references suggest they meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. The best reference I could find was [45] which is purely gossip-style coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, reads like an advert, and dubious sourcing (employers' site, a talent agency, and a booking link). sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Chrisinger[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with absolutely nothing qualifying under the bare basics of GNG or nmusic. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC and most imperative WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 04 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources and does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate that an encyclopedia article is justified. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Ghost[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Much like nearly 10 years ago, this article and artist still fail to meet WP:GNG. I can find virtually no independent reliable coverage and all of the sources appear to be unreliable, passing mentions and the like. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 04 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails Wp:NMUSIC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Juma[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. An athlete who entered several international competitions but achieved no awards or notable results at any time, tragically died before being able to do so.

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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for runners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:NATH, the subject is notable if they have competed in the Olympics, the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (former IAAF World Road Running Championships). The key word is or, so one or more of the listed events. The subject has competed in the 2015 World Championships in Athletics and so meets the criteria. Greenman (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A technicality surely? He was entered in one race at the 2015 Championships which he did not finish. That doesn't count.--CouncilConnect (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is quite clear - it says competes, not finishes. Greenman (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the subject further, he holds his country's current national half-marathon record, has won at least the Istanbul and Kilimanjaro half marathons, and his death was widely covered in media outside of his home country. Seems a fairly clearcut case to keep. 12:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep Subject meets WP:NATH multiple times. In addition to IAAF World Championships in Athletics appearance, subject finished 9th at the 2015 IAAF World Cross Country Championships – Senior men's race and won the Istanbul Half Marathon (an IAAF Gold Label Road Races). Meeting it multiple times gives a strong presumption of notability. That is a starting point, but not the end. It only gives a presumption. Here, we have an athlete from a country where, according to the Tanzania page, English is not the official language, but is list under "other." So we should be able to find at least some sources considering the recency and the role of English. Here, we have that. For example, the dailynews.co.tz article is a great source and goes towards meeting GNG (note that it is about the subject winning the Istanbul Half Marathon - the same race that causes the guideline to be met; almost like it's set up that way). With the coverage of his death, that seems to produce its own sources. To me, GNG is met. But even if someone says its not there yet, we are clearly close. In view of what is provided, WP:BIAS, and WP:NATH, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RongSigPi. Winning instanbul half marathon is a notable result. Galobtter (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RonSigPi. He's spelled it out so I don't have to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 10 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bazanji[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper who is not signed to any notable label, and has not charted nor released anything nationally. No third-party sources and fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Subject of article may qualify under WP:BASIC if page editor can devote time and gather multiple independent sources and add to article, but as it is, it does not merit a stand-alone on the encylopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 04 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are insufficient here and not the type we need to pass him on WP:GNG (given he fails, as said in the nomination statement, WP:MUSICBIO). jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G6: dab page with no bluelinks to dab. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Courageous[edit]

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

Disambiguated between two pages that have both been deleted. There's a see also, but there's no indication "Camp Courageous" is an alternative name for "Camp Courage". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - page has no function. Rogermx (talk) 16:10, 4 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 Stef Lang. As a compromise between the people who see something salvageable but not for this article (the merger-ers) and those who don't see anything worthwhile (the delete-rs) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYLN[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Sources are all flaky or self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, promotional in tone, and the sourcing therein is laughable. Ghits turned up several different individuals/companies with this name. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any secondary media sources on her. No hits, no record deal, no tours, no national TV appearences. Rogermx (talk)
Merge to Stef Lang. Evidently the same person, with DYLN being her "starting over from scratch" ([46]). --Michig (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research, Michig. I will change from Delete to Merge. This new article was probably her publicist's idea. Rogermx (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both articles were created by the same editor (Courtneyleed). They're both poorly written and promotional in tone, and Stef Lang isn't proving all that notable either. Sources in both are really bad, as PKT suggested below, that a merge doesn't seem entirely feasible. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stef Lang, although the quality of references in DYLN are so poor I don't think much should be carried over. PK T(alk) 16:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I previously marked this with ((mergeto)) and never got around to it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:27, 8 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 H2O (American band). Thanks to Michig for catching my screwup in my original closing of this. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outcrowd[edit]

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

Non-notable. A speedy (not mine) declined because there are two albums on a 'seemingly notable' label. Unreferenced and a cursory search thros up nothing. TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to H2O (American band). I can't find evidence that this band satisfies WP:NBAND (even if we regard Blackout as a significant enough indie, they only released one album on the label - "Weathered" was a single), but given that two of the three members went on to be longstanding members of H2O, it's worth covering in that article. --Michig (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks like a sensible oucome to meTheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Roush[edit]

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

Lots of references; I can't see a single one that looks solid enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some coverage found (e.g. this) but not enough to convince me that the subject is notable. --Michig (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are non-viable (LinkedIn, Twitter, iTunes, blogs, etc) and don't come close to establishing notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails primary notability requirements such as WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 04 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 New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2017. Consensus is against this staying its own article, but the redirection is uncontested and apparently has precedent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Riccardi[edit]

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

Looks like WP:TOOSOON to me: he is just a candidate for office. Other claims to nottability look insufficient to me. TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally as long as it is not a local election, but that of governship of a major state i believe as per WP:NPOL he definetely qualifies for a stand alone. Celestina007 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: In that case you are wrong. WP:NPOL actually says that "Just being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate for office with no other notability. No in-depth coverage outside routine election news. AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder , As per WP:NPOL we understand that; "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"

That It does not gurantee notability does not auto-translate to he/she not being notable as line 8 above implies and explains. That aside, even on the grounds of WP:BASIC i feel this page merits a stand alone. Celestina007 (talk) 1:16, 05 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected minor party candidate who has predicted that he will lose. The coverage is run of the mill. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete even major party candidates for governor are not 100% passes of GNG, although there is probably enough indepth coverage for most to pass. Minor party candidates for governor are orders of magnitude below passing GNG considering how little impact minor parties have in US politics. This is from an editor who voted for the Constitution Party candidate for US president in 2016, so I have no animus against the party, I just recognize that Riccardi does not meet notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not guaranteed articles just for being candidates — and being a candidate for governor isn't an automatic notability boost either, especially if one is a minor-party candidate. Even for Democratic or Republican candidates for governor, the notability usually derives from having already held another notable office prior to running for governor — such as lieutenant governor, or attorney general, or a seat in the state legislature or the US Congress, or mayor of one of the state's biggest cities — rather than from the fact of running for governor per se. But there's no preexisting notability for other reasons being demonstrated here, nor enough reliable source coverage that's substantively about him to grant him a special exception: of the 13 footnotes here, five are unnecessary reduplications of his own primary source campaign website, one is a raw table of the prior election results from 2013, three are unnecessary repetitions of two of the others, and two are basic and WP:ROUTINE overviews of all the gubernatorial candidates rather than sources which single him out for dedicated attention. So there are really only two sources here that count toward establishing notability at all — and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen32's point cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a personal bio of a person who doesn't meet WP:NPOL and got all of 0.3% in the NJ-Gov race. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consensus about unelected candidates is clear, although Wikipedia is ultimately the poorer for it. Carrite (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that. Thousands of people stand in elections worldwide every year. We would become flooded with campaign advertisements. AusLondonder (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2017, as is often done with failed candidates like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Notability is the only issue raised, and since the topic is prominent at New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2017, a notability deletion is not policy based, and the issue is a content decision. As per WP:Deletion policy, content issues don't belong at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yishaan Varma Aarveti[edit]

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

The person looks of no significant importance, disregarding the notability; also, no reliable sources are mentioned. Simranpreet singh (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources at all; fails WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self moved by creator out of mainspace; the article is failing our basic standards. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ValueMags Company[edit]

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

Declined speedy (unremarkable company); for the life of me I can' see why. References are insubstantial. TheLongTone (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the speedy was declined by an absolute newbie in her/his 18th edit, coming after a break of more than three months. I can understand why sources like this one from Chicago Tribune might give a basis for pause; but all the other sourcing within the article and available in general are press releases and/or insignificant. This should be plainly deleted; fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Lourdes 13:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passes GNG but fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as there are next to no indications as to how this company operates or why it should be included in an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:49, 9 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 El Paso Electric. As the nominator is proposing merge-and-redirect, this would fall under SK1 in general. So I'm going ahead and boldly redirecting. The only thing to merge is one single line and a ref, which I will handle. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El Paso Power Company[edit]

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

El Paso Power Company is a long standing Wikipedia article with a significant editing history ~~which happens to be an incorrect iteration of the company's name. It has never done business in such a name and when the misinformation is corrected, it becomes clear that the article~~ [that] duplicates El Paso Electric; the two pages should be merged; perhaps WP:HISTMERGEed.

I will comment in the coming days whether or not I feel the page should be deleted or kept as a redirect. I must first, research the matter a bit further. --John Cline (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I was incorrect; apparently the company's affiliate in Colorado was known as the El Paso Power Company. They do appear to be the same topic, however; needing to merge. And it should definitely be kept as a redirect. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused, is this a merge request, then? I endorse a merge. Generally in the nomination of a page at Articles for Discussion, the nominator is expected to explain why a page should be deleted not why a page should be merged. For merge proposals, see Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusion. I brought the discussion here, out of abundant caution, to seek admin attention and community input for properly handling this page. My concern was primarily to ensure the editing history of this long-standing page is preserved. I did mention the possibility of preserving that history thru a WP:HISTMERGE which I understand includes the deletion and re-creation of the page. In my determination to err on caution's side, it seems I have mistakenly chose the wrong venue, causing confusion thereby. Thank you for indulging my error.--John Cline (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to El Paso Electric. Nothing to merge,; however, it may be useful as a redirect. Beagel (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Money creation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article overlaps too much with "fractional reserve banking" see [Overcategorization] Reissgo (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true there is some overlap, however there are good reason to keep the money creation article as a generic article on the topic:

the value of the money creation article is that it describes other ways to create money outside of the banking system (ie money creation by the central bank itself). FRB is just one way to create money;
the notion of fractional reserve baking itself has been largely criticized. Fractional reserve banking can be rightly described as the outcome of the money creation process, but banks don't "multiply" central bank reserves into broad money (they adjust their reserves a posteriori). I don't want to start a debate on this point here, but as a matter of fact there are a number of alternative terms to describe Fractional reserve banking (eg. "inside money"; "broad money"). It's probably not a coincidence that most central banks have avoided reference to FRB and talk about "money creation" instead (see the BoE & Bundesbank for example).

Anyway, I see the need to reorganise somehow the content between the two articles, but "money creation" remains the most generic term that anyone can understand (and in fact the one that most people look for) so it would keep it and make sure to refer people to the FRB within it and make sure both articles are consistently complementary. My two cents. Stanjourdan (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Post-edit: actually the Money supply article would be a far better candidate for deletion/merge![reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD proposal is utter nonsense. All money and banking articles are interrelated and more or less overlapping. That's why it's a category. Maybe OP can add a section about money creation in a gold standard or money creation in a shell-exchange economy to satisfy any concerns. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a very standard topic covered in almost all macroecon and money and banking courses. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in dispute - the question is - is the contents already covered by the fractional reserve banking page.Reissgo (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Money creation and fractional reserve banking are almost synonymous. Indeed the Bank of England paper Stanjourdan mentions, entitled "Money Creation in the Modern Economy" is essentially a paper that describes how fractional reserve banking works. The two articles have sections going over the same ground - see for example their sections on the Money Multiplier. Surely encyclopaedias should not cover the same information in about the same level of detail in two places at once. Reissgo (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a self-published BoE organ. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC) And it's OR to characterize that essay as an endorsement of this proposal. The essay is not about the question this thread is to resolve. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not synonymous! That's what i tried to explain above. The fact that FRB is money creation does not mean all money creation is FRB... For example QE or printing notes / minting coins are other forms of money creation which do not involve FRB. Stanjourdan (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us consider the individual sections of the money creation page...

* Lede - this material is covered on the FRB page

* 1 - this material is covered on the FRB page

* 1.1 - this material is covered on the FRB page

* 1.2 - this section (with zero references) is covered by its own dedicated page.

* 1.3 - this section is covered by its own dedicated page.

* 2 - this material is covered on the FRB page

* 2.1 - this material is covered on the FRB page

* 2.2 - this material is covered on the FRB page

* 3 - this material is covered on the FRB page

Reissgo (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to convince me about the overlaps (and neither do i need convincing about the need to seriously improve the consistency of all money related wiki pages) but yet I remain unsatisfied by your lack of response to my objection that all money creation mechanisms are not linked with FRB, hence one cannot claim that the FRB entry would advantageously replace money creation. Second I would be curious to know what would justify moving money creation to FRB and not – for example – to Endogenous money or money supply. I think there is need for a much larger conversation here before deciding on deleting this particular page. Stanjourdan (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Stanjourdan, there could be money creation mechanisms not connected to FRB. But the term "money creation" as discussed in textbooks would normally be a reference to money creation within a fractional reserve system. If you made a Venn diagram of fractional reserve banking and money creation (as discussed on the wiki page), then the sum total of what is outside of fractional reserve banking is IMHO A) rather small and B) fully covered elsewhere.

On another note altogether, much of the contents of fractional reserve banking is very contentious and has been battled over for years by many frustrated editors. If we have another page which contains essentially the same material in similar levels of detail then we are unnecessarily creating two battlefields. Reissgo (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is concerned that deleting the money creation page could leave readers missing out on anything, we could A) have money creation redirect to fractional reserve banking. and B) add a small section to fractional reserve banking entitled "Alternative ways of creating money" which gave links to pre-existing wiki pages. Reissgo (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on the grounds that libertarians and other folk mark a distinction between fiat and money with intrinsic value. The subject of money is vaster then just the specific national currencies in place and today's cryptocurrencies involve a different process of creation. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's where the shells and gold rush stuff comes in. I guess they didn't have a gold rush in Great Britain but they did sail all hither and yon in search of material wealth and inflations and deflations ensued. This is one of the snowiest AfD keeps in recent memory. Nor is the content controversial. It's just one editor with a ~~bug in his britches~~bee in his bonnet about the British banking system. All the economics articles could use improvement, because they involve technical subject matter and it's natural that the population of WP editors qualified to contribute is smaller than it is for, say, cheese. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that the money creation page *could* talk about many things unconnected with fractional reserve banking - but the page as it stands scarcely does. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - look at the table above - seven out of nine "sections" are essentially the same as on the FRB page. Does anyone want to challenge my summary of the nine sub-parts of the main page? If the page contained more distinct content I would not be making this AfD request. Reissgo (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source to get you started on your ~~porridge~~pudding. Tally ho! Have at it.

And whilst you're enjoying your visit here, you might want to read the helpful WP guidance at the top of the edit screen for this page and improve the article with RS content rather than trying to disappear it. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An apple and orange overlap in being fruit but they remain distinct. That and fractional reserve banking obviously talks about a type of banking. Money creation is a subtopic in this given context and credit creation is just one kind of money creation :) --JamesPoulson (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at the moment the article overlaps with fractional reserve banking, but its scope is wider. With AfDs its worth considering whether the article would be a keep if the page was in a reasonable shape. The article needs work on broadening, this is cause to broaden it, not delete it. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep this isn't a great article, but it's nowhere close to WP:TNT. I'm not convinced a merge with Fractional-reserve banking would be appropriate. Regardless, a merge should be discussed on a talk page or WikiProject page, and not here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like the article is a hoax and propaganda. Let me put some citation needed tag in the article. Crashed greek (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section Money creation by commercial banks part is hoax. One reference is page 1 of a book. First half of article looks fine. Crashed greek (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While admitting that there may be some overlap here and there as things currently stand, this is a very legitimate encyclopedic topic and is not a POV fork. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 10 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. I think the last rationale is the most succinct one here - as it (and others) have pointed out, unless the article pulled together every occasion on which China was involved in another countries' affairs (which would be a ludicrously long article) this is effectively OR. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign political events with the interference of Communist Party of China[edit]

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

This article has various problems. It is encyclopedic; written from a biased and a non Neutral point of view; with unclear criteria of selection; some entries being trivial or normal in any society; highly speculative with more assumptions than proven facts; it has a journalistic sensationalist tone and unreliable sources. If we are talking about foreign affairs Hong Kong and Macau shouldn't be in this article, those entities being part of China, so it is an internal issue and again the tone is biased and speculative with unproven assumptions. Daduxing (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Favor deletion: As per above, plus

The article cannot meet the suggestions for alternatives to deletion at WP:ATD, such as editing or merging because "interference" cannot be defined neutrally. The article is POV by its very nature.
A search of Wilkipedia interference of finds no other article for any other country. I do not see, for instance, List of foreign political events with the interference of Russia or List of foreign political events with the interference of the United States. Maybe this search is not correctly framed, or material may exist within another article, but I do not see it. ::ch (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: You may delete the content there is not with reasonable citation. However, many of the events listed were with reliable citation, and were included in other WikiPedia article. Hong Kong and Macau is regarded as not Part of China in many technical context. The reason of listing the respective incidents are therefore justified. Hong Kong and Macau are not only internal affairs of China, but also places that should be protected by international treaties. An ignorance of the treaties should also be considered as interfenence of affairs of the other treaty-signing country.Universehk (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: The title is a bit biased, It should say 'involvement' instead of 'interference' as interference is too broad. Actually there a a page similar to foreign events with the interference of the United states and its United States involvement in regime change. I don't see a proposal to delete that page. While inclusion of Macau and Hong Kong is debatable, there plenty of reasonable citation in major international events and if there is any highly speculative entries, those entries can be deleted on said grounds, but not the entire wikipedia page. DoctorHell(talk) 06:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) This is not only about the sources. It's about the tone of the article. As an example look at the first entry. Some students showing their opinion (nothing wrong with that, we are not here to judge them), the consulate is supporting its citizens (it’s the consulate/embassy job anyway). So what’s wrong here? Oh, it is about that villainous China with her evil CCP! They surely have an evil master plan to corrupt the minds of the free Aussies. See, we are making some biased, highly speculative and unproven assumptions, writing them from a non NPOV. And this is the case with most the informations from this this article. Sure this can make a sensationalistic (click-bite) MSM news, but it’s inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

2) Saying that HK/Macau is not part of China is like saying that the State of California is not part of the US. (Yes Universehk, I know about the „treaties”) Daduxing (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes the tone of the article could be argued as biased, thats the reason there is an NPOV dispute template put in place. In regards to the first entry, it is very puzzling why would a consulate get involved in an internal university affair in the first place, the characterization of the sources being "sensationalistic (click-bite)" is an opinion, while others would think of those sources as highly reputable sources. DoctorHell(talk) 17:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - fails WP:NOR, WP:NEUTRAL, and WP:NLIST. As one of the major powers in the world, China probably exerts some influence on most important political events happening anywhere, and so do the US, EU, and Russia, for that matter. There's no point listing an indiscriminate collection of events that may or may not be influenced by Communist China. -Zanhe (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, the article is just describing the state actor interference of foreign events. Shall this article be deleted, this one also need deletion United_States_involvement_in_regime_change -黑武士仲尼 (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) Do you see any regime changes in the Chinese article like in the US one? We are talking about two different aspects/activities. Besides the sources of the article about America are the books and scholars, but the sources regarding China are the news sites, which are problematic for the reasons specified above. 2) DoctorHell that tag there if for you to fix the problem, not to justify it or accept it --Daduxing (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDaduxing, before attempted say there are no pages with similar activities and now there is one you attempt to justify they are different. It's similar activities under a different name. During the Cold War, USA and its allies sponsored 'Regime change' to gain sphere of influence as well as Russia and China and its allies, there plenty of examples in this article. Many other wikipedia pages uses news sites as sources. Blaming one user for failing 'to fix the problem' is not justifiable reason for deletion. DoctorHell(talk) 16:34, 5 November (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list with no clear criteria. There's everything here from China participating in multilateral talks, China selling arms, alleged Chinese spies, Chinese businessman making donations, stuff about HK and Macau which probably doesn't qualify as foreign. Many of these things are things that most countries do, but this article is hopelessly non-neutral. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an interesting and sourced list. The criteria for inclusion are more or less clear. The existence of the page is consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, although it can be improved. One could argue this content could be merged to Politics of China or elsewhere, but it is better served by the standalone list. The list can be renamed to something better, but this is a different question. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 10 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. ansh 666 02:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Huseynli[edit]

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

Non-notable cartoonist who fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. No notable work has been produced by the article subject, and per WP:ARTIST the subject has not had a significant impact on his field. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator proposed this article for deletion. I contested this deletion on 20/10/2017, yesterday commenting "The page is about a real person who works for Azerbaijani cartoon magazine - Kirpi.info. He has thousands of followers in Facebook and Instagram and I think the added information can be considered important for his followers." Farid Huseynli works for one and only cartoon magazine in Azerbaijan. The information added in the article is true and supported by the references. He was interviewed by the local news magazines and radio channels. The links of his interviews were also added in the "See Also" paragraph. This Wiki article is of great importance for his fans to learn more about him. I will add his cartoons as soon as possible to prove that he is really engaged in this field. GulchinHuseynova (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is hard to parse, as it was written in such a promotional way, and the language of the references is not English. I will say that I have never seen hashtags used in references! I removed those, and a half dozen inline URLS as well. Someone went to a lot of effort to make a promotional article.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked around for references, and they are far and few between. Basic notability is not established, not are any of the WP:Artist criteria.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Thank you for comments. I have to say that this is not a promotional article. The aim in creating this article is to place information about Azerbaijani cartoonist for his foreigner followers. The references are not in English because he is Azerbaijan based cartoonist. He is quite popular in his country and that's why he was invited to the country's famous Radio channels. GulchinHuseynova (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking GulchinHuseynova's second keep vote. (You cannot vote twice.) In any cast this is not a vote, it is a discussion based on WP:NOTABILITY criteria.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article where its Subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a LinkedIn profile. Not notable. Very suspicious that there is not yet a more appropriate article in the Azeri language WP, obviously the article is intended to promote an otherwise obscure subject--Mevagiss (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are just too weakly argued to overcome the unrebutted concerns of the "delete" side that there is not enough reliable, substantial third-party coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:BLP. The "keep" arguments amount to "he has a significant ministry" (which should be sourceable), "he has a lot of Amazon reviews" (which are not reliable sources), "other articles about academics are just as poorly sourced" (WP:WAX), "he has many books and Google hits" (also not reliable sources), and "systemic bias" (against influential white American men? really?). There is only one "keep" that actually argues that there are "multiple independent sources which discuss our subject", but does not say what these sources are. Sandstein 09:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Frangipane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this article for deletion last year and it was kept in a low-turnout discussion with some specious keep arguments. The problems with this article are manifold. It is a BLP with precisely zero reliable sources. There are supposedly good sources for this subject (per the arguments in the previous AfD) but they have not manifested themselves in the ensuing year.

My original goal was to return to this highly promotional article, scrape off all of the promotional fluff and start over with good sources. But there are no good sources, and it is all fluff. A fluff-ectomy would leave no article behind.

In short, there is no indication in the article that the subject meets the GNG, and the fact that it has been entirely unsourced for over 8 years is both a major BLP problem and a strong hint that it will never be adequately sourced. A Train^talk 00:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject—doesn't meet WP:GNG. Notability is based on sources, and we lack sources to show that Frangipane was/is notable. Additionally, the article is heavy on WP:PROMO and WP:FLOWERY language. I agree with the nominator, it's all fluff and "a fluff-ectomy would leave no article behind."- GS ⋙ ☎ 03:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only section with any citation is the bibliography section. Without it, it would have qualified for WP:BLPPROD. Alexius08 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If the claims of the article are right, he has a significant national and international ministry. Though it is not an independent source, there is a bio on his website here, which seems similar to that in the article, but different enough not to be copy-vio. I not that the previous keep was following comments from two regular AFD contributors, who evidently knew of him. The only real objection is that a BLP should be sourced, and his only lists some external websites for "see also", not references. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he has a "significant ministry" then where are the articles and profiles in reliable sources about him? The bio on his website is not an independent, reliable source. Neither are the "see also" links, which are all the subject's businesses. A Train^talk 19:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

leaning Keep this AfD puts me in mind of one from a couple of weeks ago on an author, Andrew Heywood, the author of a number of textbooks on political theory. There, as here, Nom's pretty persuasive argument was " The only source is credited to his own website." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood. This thing is, Heywood's textbooks sold an astonishing number of copies, and according to the DesMoines Register, there are 2 million copies of Frangiane's many books in print. It's not a WP:RS but Amazon.com shows literally hundreds of reviews for Frangipane's books, by verified purchasers. As with Heywood, I am having trouble finding sources about Frangipane (I did find a couple, and added them to the page). He has been a columnist at Charisma (magazine) for years, but those are articles by him, not about him. This AfD is not simple.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of secondary sources, doesn't pass GNG. Cjhard (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't make heads or tails of this topic after doing an in-depth search on Google. Our article is full of WP:OR and is being turned into copy pasta. So the best sources I found were copy pasta.
All of the uncited material should be removed, even if all that is left is a list of publications. I'm not worried about notability, the notability is obvious, with author after author quoting this man.
My number one concern right now is WP:V#Notability, which requires one or two secondary sources, and I'm not sure that we have that. I need to review the policy.
I found an in-depth study from South Africa, http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/vee/v30n2/12.pdf. This thing about Jezebel seems to be a hot topic on a chat board I saw. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the completely unsourced bio section now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert and StAnselm: who participated in last year's AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:A Train, I do see where you're coming from; I saw it at last year's AfD. Two days ago, this was just an ADVERT. The source brought by User:Unscintillating is persuasive. I have now removed the long, unsourced bio, added some reliably sourced material, and I continue to think that Frangipane is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is definitely getting better. E.M.Gregory, and if it ends up being kept, I promise to help you improve it further. That said, I am not massively swayed by the sources here. Just to be extra pendantic, let's have a reminder of what the project considers a good source: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This stricture is even more important for BLPs, like this one. So let's examine our sources.

A book review in the Des Moines Register. I take this one on faith because it's behind a ProQuest subscription link. This is a reliable source for the book more than its BLP author, anyway.
An exceedingly trivial mention of the subject in this Christian Post blog. Even if this was an in-depth profile of the subject, is the Christian post a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Dunno about that one.
Two citations from the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Christian thinktank. Again, does this have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
A mention in a book by one Michael Wilkinson, a redlink author.

I'm totally open to the idea that this fellow is a major figure in contemporary Christianity. But where's the big profile in National Review, American Spectator, or Christianity Today to that effect? A Train^talk 11:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was just writing this when you rang: Sourcing Article needs sourcing and expansion, and sources are available in books. Although ~ the first 5 pages of a book search turn up books written by Frangipane, after that you start to get SIGCOV discussions of his ideas, and a few details about his career. Not all is favorable, one described his writing on "the Jezabel spirit" as "anachronistic." Some of the books that discuss his work are probably self-published, but some are by "real" publishers. The same is true of books written by Frangipane; he has had books published by Baker Publishing Group, but has also (mostly?) self-published. However, a number of his books have been translated into other languages. Article needs an editor, or several of them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Post is well regarded, and probably about as good on facts as the average American daily. I am hoping that one of the editors I pinged above will be more able than I to set Frangipane in his proper context. There is, for example, his book The Jezebel Spirit, which is about the Jezebel spirit. I added material cited to a single book to the text. Talking like this about women certainly places him at one edge of modern Protestantism. But my point here is that if you run a book search on frangipane +"jezebel spirit", you get quite a few hits [47]. The first hit is to the book I cited in the text; the 2nd hit is self=published, but the third hit is on Music in the Old Bones: Jezebel Through the Agesis out from Southern Illinois University Press, it is by Janet Howe Gaines, a literature professor at the University of New Mexico, and it offers a scholarly encounter with Frangipane's work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that all is sounding more promising to me. If some more academic references materialize then I'm happy to withdraw the nomination and get to work improving the article. A Train^talk 12:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last comment was 5 days ago looking for more academic sources to materialize - have any been located?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- but not for the reasons one might expect. I expect evangelists to engage in self-promotion as much as any musician or comedian. There is a dose of COI here too, I suspect. My concern is the standard used for academics, whose ONLY claim to fame is their bibliography. No mainstream press articles about Frangipane? There aren't many about most academics, either. Rhadow (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as half of an argument. Preachers are different from profs, and therefore we shouldn't use the same criteria when evaluating them. Okay, for the sake of discussion, I'm with you so far. But where is there criteria that we should use when evaluating them? You seem to be arguing that, because they aren't typically covered in mainstream sources, preachers should be exempt from the WP:GNG. A Train^talk 07:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for jumping in here, especially since my own comment is deserving of criticism as half an argument, but there is a difference between preachers and evangelists, going back to the Greek words. Unscintillating (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a classicist, I am embarrassed. You are correct, Unscintillating: I used broad synonyms carelessly. I think my point remains, however. A Train^talk 23:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Many if not all churches have preachers, but evangelists are few and far between. Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely a character of such distinction has been written about in spades. But we're in the same place we were when I nominated this article two weeks ago, and little removed from when I nominated it over a year ago: a BLP with no reliable sources. A Train^talk 00:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment is "great. where are the sources then?" By changing the topic of your own question, you are making the keep !vote stronger, since the point about PROF is exactly the point that GNG (and your fallacy, "surely a character of...distinction has been written about" with sufficient sources to show GNG) is not the core definition of WP:N.

And yet, I was thinking something quite similar, which is, "what is the evidence that the topic is an evangelist"? I would love to see that evidence. It doesn't have to be GNG sources. And evidence is more important in WP:N than sources.

As for WP:V#Notability, it says, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Is this satisfied? Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I'm not following you at all. How exactly have I "changed the topic of my own question"? That sounds like a pretty nifty trick I've got there, apparently.

There is a lot of handwaving in this debate but it really just comes down to one thing: are there enough reliable sources to support a BLP? BLP concerns are paramount everywhere on Wikipedia. Are there reliable sources that will support a BLP in this article or indeed anywhere? The answer continues to be no. All I have been doing since the beginning of this discussion (and not unreasonably, I like to think) is ask for sources. There is a lot of argumentation but the sources are not forthcoming. A Train^talk 01:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wanting to defend my position as having said reasonable things, but your responses are having an effect of pushing me to explain to you that my comments are based in reason. Your first question was, "But where is there criteria that we should use when evaluating <evangelists>?" Interesting question, but the next thing I know, your argument has shifted to GNG sources. WP:N doesn't need sources. The fact that the article needs reliable sourcing is a different question than Wikipedia notability. Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely sorry if I'm alienating you, User:Unscintillating that is not my intent. I guess we just have wildly divergent understandings of WP:N. As you yourself point out above, WP:N demands that if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. I do not understand how this logically squares with your assertion that WP:N doesn't need sources, or with the notion that I have somehow moved the goalposts.

The thought experiment about WP:NEVANGELIST was a (mildly) entertaining path to finding what sourcing guideline we should have for this subject, but it is ultimately always down to sources. A Train^talk 07:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wildly"? Your softening words are joined with ever increasing escalations. WP:V is core content policy. Policy pages state that they are widely (not wildly) accepted standards that all editors should normally follow. As long as you look at a quote from a core content policy, WP:V, and think that I'm citing a minor guideline, WP:N, your escalations will continue to be your personal problem. It does verify that you haven't a clue what I've been emphasizing as the most important issue starting with my first comment.

But the problem here is also your understanding of W:N, which does not require sources, and PROF is a helpful example of how this is applied. Unscintillating (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- OK, I think I can express myself more clearly now. Politicians and athletes get press automatically. We have our choice of mainstream articles. We can afford to be critical and choosy. College professors get tributes when they retire. Preachers, I'm not sure when. So we take what we can get; we should use good judgement. In the case of Frangipane, we might ask ourselves, "Is he someone we want to remember in fifty years time?" Or, put another way, would the New York Times publish his obit without being paid? It's easy to write a policy, hard to teach judgment. Tell me what you really want to do and I'll change my vote. Rhadow (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:N asks the question, "is the topic worthy of notice". Especially in my search through pages 5-10 of Google scholar, I saw reference after reference quote from the topic. This to me shows that the topic is worthy of notice. Readers will have a reason to ask, "Who is Francis Frangipane".
What can I/we write reliably about the topic is a different question. Should we accept in Wikipedia's voice that he has ministered to thousands of pastors? Maybe we should just say that we couldn't find the type of material that we needed to write an article, making the point that those in the ministry could add a "Media" page to their primary website showing where independent sources have written about them. Maybe we just haven't looked at reliable things we could say with the material we have. My sense right now is that we don't have an article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not able to find any substantive review of the subject's works. That's how notability for authors is judged. If 3rd party sources take notice of the author's work, then it's appropriate to have an encyclopedia entry. I don't see it this case. As discussed above, apart from DM review, the coverage is shallow and incidental. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not readily finding sources counting to GNG, but with a book list that long and 117,000 Google hits for the full name search, I'm trusting that there's three or four of 'em out there in that humongous haystack. Clearly a major Pentecostal popular writer. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some valid concerns raised here about systemic bias in Wikipedia, and I believe it's for the best that the article remains.Egaoblai (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of our discussion albeit as earlier mentioned does not have much reliable sources in the article, a google search verifies his notability. There are multiple independent sources which discuss our subject of discussion and on that note i say via WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC, this article merits a stand-alone.Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 04 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY, did another (small) expand source, I think it's now in acceptable shape and meets ATrain's request above for more academic sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. Article still needs expansion. What I did accomplish is to identify one idea that Frangipane is notable for writing/preaching about, the "Jezebel spirit," and source that to reliable scholarly sources (written by academics who do NOT share Frangipane's POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is written in a promotional tone, and I see no good claim of meeting either WP:CLERGY, or WP:GNG. River of Life Ministries appears to be a single congregation, not a wider movement. I can't easily evaluate the claim that he would meet WP:NACADEMIC; I don't see clear evidence for it. As far as WP:NAUTHOR, he has a lot of works but I'm not sure any of them are considered important in any way, and trade press coverage of the books won't make him notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed some of the hype. However, the fix for Hype is editing or discussion; it's not directly relevant to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 11 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Shim[edit]

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

Another forever up and coming actress for the last 10 years. Has a history of being tagged with notability template which keeps being removed. Prod in June 2016, stuck with notability template since this time too, so plenty of time for authors to fix it. Still not meeting WP:BIO despite being around for so long, so delete. JacktheHarry (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - look carefully and you will see that half of her hagiography is work collaborating with or working under her husband. Go to any of the articles of films or TV shows in which it is claimed she acted: no mention. I don't see sufficient reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Rhadow (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Robert Ben Garant as spouse. She was active in Reno 911 as a recurring role, and its related movie with a guest role. She's covered in several local newspapers in Southern California but I don't know if she has enough roles that would meet WP:ENT [48] [49] She's in some series called 30 Miles From Nowhere as a co-star [50] She stars in Heebie Jeebies (2013 film) [51] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just redirecting wife to husband strikes me as somewhat sexist, but discuss away...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looked up Twitter page of our subject of discussion and i discovered she has 10,000 followers. I'm not sure what begins a "cult following" as stated by WP:ENT but i know it isnt 10,000 followers. That asides, she fails WP:GNGACTOR and WP:BASIC.Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 04 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has numerous film and television credits, with most of those highlighting her in leading or co-starring roles, not bit parts. IMDb specifies 153 individual acting credits in 64 films and TV shows. No one with such an acting resume, going back to 2005, can be accused of lacking notability. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article isn't credible. TV pilot Wildlife role: Anne. Follow the wikilink: nothing. Then look at The Cleveland Show. The article claims Shim has various voice roles. Gee, I don't see any. IMDB is not a reliable independent source. Rhadow (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links in her biographical entry have not been made to point toward their proper targets, but those misdirected links should not become a reason in singling out the article for proposed deletion. Wildlife should be either redlinked or unlinked, because the pilot episode for this unsold NBC sitcom, in which Cathy Shim had a major supporting role, does not have its own Wikipedia entry, but is mentioned, at least, in the article for its star, Christopher Sieber#Television. As for The Cleveland Show, that link should actually flow not to the show's main header, but to the episode in which she provided the voice of Margaret Cho, Love Rollercoaster (The Cleveland Show), as depicted here. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at her filmogrophy her most notable role seems to be on "Reno 911" which she only starred in 9 episodes out of 88. Most of her other work appears to be single or a couple epidoes in various tv shows and non notable film roles. --Deathawk (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources. IMDB is not to be trusted in this instance because it has unreliable information. FAils WP:ENT, ANYBIO, and BASIC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - limited to no reliable sources to back up the information, and no major roles or even long standing minor roles in a major series. Very basic mediocre career, and the article is barely more than a list copied from Imdb. All round not worth keeping. Dysklyver 20:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has extensive acting history across television, movies, some theatre, and video games. For notability - I am seeking an additional reference, but she starred in one of Eminem's film-clips. Surely this is significant when as a comparison, there is a non-disputed page for young dancer Maddie Ziegler (who was the star of Sia's Chandelier video), and has a less extensive acting history. It seems inconsistent. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this. SunnyBoi (talk) 06:34, 6 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. Neither of the "keep"s points to specific sources that meet WP:GNG. Sandstein 09:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Anarchy[edit]

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

No notable and unsourced. Looks like a small NWA territory. Looking for sources I only found a few 2006 reports. The other sources aren't about the promotion (a wrestler hired by WWE who worked in the promotion...) HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose the championships NWA Anarchy Young Lions Championship, NWA Anarchy Television Championship, NWA Anarchy Heavyweight Championship, NWA Anarchy Tag Team Championship

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The promotion has not gone out of business, and regardless of what some may think, it still is a notable indy promotion - try searching more recent articles through this:

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

24.68.218.0 (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stills the same [52] Just a few reports from 2013, but after page 2, just trivial mentions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I do see some coverage but it looks mainly like results from individual shows, probably not enough for WP:SIGCOV.LM2000 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for the belts though, they haven't the slightest claim to notability.LM2000 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments maybe merge to NWA Wildside Before you straight up delete you should know that this was also formally Wrestling Association for Georgia (NWA Georgia territory) also, There is a fair bit missing, but maybe it would be better off merging NWA Wildside and Anarchy together. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm not saying it has the correct amount of sources, but looking at what the company was, it should have sources in Newspapers and magazines and the like. Maybe a merge until these can be found however. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mudasser Zaheer[edit]

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

Just promotional bio. Much is written per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article too full of buzz words. No actual show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 5 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 02:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darbar Sain Saheli Sarkar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 11:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Halsey[edit]

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

No sources outside of IMDB which is not a reliable source. Looked for myself I couldn't even find an obituary. Rusted AutoParts 05:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor. We do not have aims to cover as many actors as IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A definite lack of external sources to support claims of notability. Non-notable actor who doesn't pass WP:NACTOR.--Alaindrouin (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete I recognize Ian Smael has written some notable songs over his career, and he has recorded some early, recognized works in Gospel beat and Christian new wave music, none of them are seminal. The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music does have an entry for Ishmael United (a.k.a. Ishmael and Andy and Ishmael) however it's only one column in length, and lists six albums. This is not significant. It's unlikely that we will find additional content online and I have rarely, if ever, seen any content in print media reviewing the subject's works or discussing the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darda (toy)[edit]

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

Inadequately referenced since June 2006. The only source in the article is the product's own website. Difficult to find RS online. Also, this article is promotional. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since sources can be found pretty easily. While I'm not sure how great any of them are, they all appear to be independent: [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] There's probably more in German works. Some seem to think (incorrectly) that everything written about anything commercial is promotional, but this article is mostly factual and actually has few tone problems, which are easily fixed (the "promotional" claim is hard to sustain in this case). A weird thing is the use of past tense, since these toys are still in production and are available [65]. Maybe there was a production hiatus between the first draft of the article and now? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable toy widely available in my childhood. Here is a book that talks a bit (in a not very scholarly way, probably aimed at children) about the motor. The past tense is probably due to the fact that Hot Wheels is much bigger than Darda these days. —Kusma (t·c) 12:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while mumbling about WP:BEFORE. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ERevMax - RateTiger[edit]

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

Page previously deleted at ERevMax, but the company remains non-notable; the provided sources are merely regurgitated/explicit press releases and a WP:BEFORE search shows nothing substantial enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I proposed G11 on this a few weeks ago, and still feel it is promotional in its current form. I see no sign of the company or its product being generally notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GVOX[edit]

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

Not notable, fails notability requirements, fails WP:V also seems to be WP:Promotion as well. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with nom. Fails GNG, poor refs. South Nashua (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As per nominator.Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 04 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 Gaborone#Health Care. Content can be merged from history. ansh 666 02:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaborone Private Hospital[edit]

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

Declined CSD because of one self ref. Fails WP:CORP, WP:CORPDEPTH no WP:SIGCOV and WP:AUD. No even mention in any reliable sources. Ammarpad (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

while I disagree that one advertesque self ref disqualifies from CSD, I'm quite confident it does not qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources. does not meet GNG or CORP notability. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and briefly mention at Gaborone#Health Care. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 11 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. ansh 666 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul R. Blakemore[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill minor academic, only a US associate professor. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS shows a couple of highly-cited papers, but not enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, I think, and there's no indication the subject passes the other criteria. – Joe (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an inherent violation of GNG to source an article only to an individuals employer bio. All the more so because employer bios usually do not involve indepdent verification. Maybe if we had a bio in the university magazine or newspaper, I would consider it at least somewhat indepdent, but university online bios are not really at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Violation? GNG does not prohibit anything, so not passing GNG does not violate anything. And you're misreading GNG; it is only about the existence of references, not their use in an article. That criterion is in any case irrelevant to this one (as irrelevant as WP:NSPORTS or WP:NPOL etc): we have a different criterion, WP:PROF, that we should be evaluating. If you're not willing to play that game, you should stop leaving these off-topic arguments on academic deletion discussions or lobby to change the academic notability criterion, not keep using the wrong one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The citation record is borderline — as Joe already said, a couple of well cited papers but not much below them. I would be more inclined to support notability on the basis of WP:PROF#C1 if there were something of interest to say about the subject. But as it is, we have no in-depth sources on Blakemore (published by his employer or anyone else, but reliable and not merely self-published) to use as the basis of an article. There's not much content in the article as it is now, but what's there is too badly sourced to keep. And with no sourceable content, there's no basis for keeping an article, even if he does barely pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus has become clearer following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leemon Baird[edit]

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

No evidence of personal notability, third-party cites are passing mentions. Zero hits on Google News. His great work, Hashgraph is similarly not notable. This is difficult to distinguish from a vanity piece. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashgraph. David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost all of the sources mentioning his name seem to be based on press releases and contain little-to-no biographical information. Fails WP:ANYBIO.- Mr X 16:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unable to find the Google Scholar profile but I found the DBLP entry. Can anyone find the h-index?--DreamLinker (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On Google scholar, searching for "author:leemon-baird", I find citation counts of 759, 289, 224, 199, 141, 127, 82, 76, etc., with an h-index of 24. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you David Eppstein. This seems to be quite a borderline case. I tried the search with "excluding patents" and it gives an h-index of 21. There are a couple of highly cited papers on reinforcement learning, but other than that, I don't find much. Personally I am leaning towards a delete.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a CEO of a nn company? Pass. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion, which the page is with its excessive listing of insignificant publications. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per K.e.coffman. Non-notable person, known for a non-notable product whose page has recently been deleted under AfD. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Heyliger[edit]

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

Frederick Heyliger was a company grade officer assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. Heyliger parachuted into Normandy as part of Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion. He was transferred to and assumed command of E Company when Captain Richard Winters was assigned to the battalion headquarters. Heyliger led his company in an operation to rescue stranded British paratroopers; his performance earned him the British Military Cross. He was wounded by friendly fire shortly afterward and was evacuated. Neither his rank (eventually captain) nor his awards (including the Military Cross) qualify him for coverage under WP:SOLDIER. After the war he was graduated with a degree in ornamental horticulture. His civilian career earned him no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced to meet WP:GNG. By WP:SOLDIER’s own standards Heyliger meets a few of the requirements. I’m noticed this is similar to the redirect discussion for Eugene Roe, which I believe should not have been done. Rusted AutoParts 06:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is easily met by the extensive, varied, and long-lasting sourcing. Notability is unquestionable. Rockypedia (talk) 00:01, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FieldLens[edit]

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

An avertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR-driven or based on WP:SPIP sources. Has raised $8M which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. The company has been acquired by WeWork in June of this year, but the FieldLens is not mentioned in the parent company's article (for lack of significance, probably), so it's not a suitable redirect target. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company, describing and referenced by its start-up funding round coverage. At the point of acquisition, the company had around 25 employees and "thousands of customers in the building trade" [66]. The product sales base suggests potential in looking further, but my searches are finding announcements during its launch period in 2014-15 and some post-takeover discussion but not the substantial coverage needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 4 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. Did not redirect, as the potential target is likely to be deleted or redirected itself. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bean Ball Benny[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. I only know of one reliable independent source that's beyond a trivial mention, but it's hardly worth putting the info in. This article simply has no potential to become fully-developed. Adam9007 (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. It's very rare for cancelled or incomplete software to be notable. The only mention at all on WP:VG/RS's search is in describing the developer while discussing a different unreleased title. -- ferret (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reliable source I was referring to says that that Bennie (the character) is a Mario clone and has to save a town from some criminals by chasing them through the streets while avoiding obstacles. He has a taxi and some weapons. That's about it. Not really worth an article. Adam9007 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- here are three magazine articles about it indirectly linked in the article: http://segaretro.org/Bean_Ball_Benny/Magazine_articles JOE BRO 64 22:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While these are reliable sources, the coverage here is incredibly brief. Not significant enough to create a solid article. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can find more sources with greater depth, this topic seems to fail WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article stands now, and per nom, it fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nuvision Entertainment. It's a reasonable search term (given the number of times it appears in unreliable sources) about a subject not noteworthy enough to merit its own article. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorita d'Este[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. All books are self-published (via her Avalonia organisation). Also a lack of reliable sources, and I can't find any myself. Santa Cruz Santa (talk) 23:53, 27 October 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 October 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is fundamental problems with the sources used besides being mostly unreliable they are dead links too. — Ammarpad (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I used archive bot on the page, but the rescued links don't help. Galobtter (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Dictum[edit]

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

The article provides no external sources to indicate notability, and it has been an article generated by a person with clear responsibility for the product. Conflict of interest most definitely. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As per nominator.Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user billinghurst, I'm new to Wikipedia contributions and I'm not sure how to tag you or other users (I'm working on figuring out how). I sincerely apologise if there was any oversight of violation of ToS on my part. It is not my intention to promote Indus Dictum or my personal profile, and I am very careful about the conflicts of interest that may arise from my contributions. I assure you that any and all information that I have entered here is factually correct to the best of my knowledge. I am the founder of Indus Dictum, and I wasn't sure where to mention that (although my username is a total giveaway), but I urge you most kindly to not delete this page. Indus Dictum is a real foundation for journalism based in India, and you can see the list of contributors to our journal on the website. If I have entered any wrong information on the page, I will be most happy and quick to correct it. Please do let me know which areas of the text are in contravention of Wiki ToS and I will surely hasten to amend those portions. I do once again offer my sincerest apologies for any oversights. None of the information I have submitted is fraudulent, and we have a large following on various online platforms like wordpress, facebook and email subcriptions. I would be happy to share with you any verifications you may need in these matters. I hope we can edit the page to comply with the regulations, and will be glad to make the necessary changes immediately. Thank you. — Ankurborwankar (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sincerely I can't find even unreliable not talk of reliable sources that reported about this "online stuff", the only result coming back is their own website. Non notable publication fails WP:GNG fails WP:WEB, the author has actual (but undisclosed) COI — Ammarpad (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, non-notable website, COI issues, etc. Sro23 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others. A search for "indus dictum -indusdictum.com" reveals only internships by them. Galobtter (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab Organisation for Human Rights in the UK & EU[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with Arab Organization for Human Rights, which is notable (and has an article). Kleuske (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete in accordance with WP:A7. No assertion of notability. Nominated for deletion as ((db-corp)). ~Anachronist (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steam Early Access games[edit]

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

User:Jakevossen5 said this is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly nobody is maintaining this unmaintainable, ever-growing list of 3000+ games (according to the external link) for the past few years. Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vaypertrail (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The usage of the external link in this nomination statement could easily mislead a reader into misinterpreting the statement as meaning that the article itself is an unmaintainable ever-growing list of 3000+ games, which nobody is maintaining. When, in fact, the number of entries in the article are a fraction of that amount. Also, it's unclear which list the nominator asserts is not being maintained, the one in the article, or the one located at the external link. Huggums537 (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Unanimous references by variants of a single source. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unmaintainable, and fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE (with a touch of WP:SPAM and WP:NOTNEWS thrown in there as well). Reyk _YO! 09:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pity you didn't have a WP:PINCH, or a WP:SPRINKLE of something else to WP:TOSS in there also... Heh heh. Huggums537 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the name of the Cynical Fleet per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete – Very hard to maintain; fails these two sections of NOT principly, not to mention failing other guidelines or policies. A classic case of listcruft. Even if Wikipedia's guidelines were all made by me—a person who sets a very low bar in principle for lists—would dismiss this. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GyazMail[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Article seems to be only original research WP:OR. Also contains little if any encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this article a few months ago for being a "non-notable application" but the article's creator claimed in the edit summary when removing the prod, "GyazMail is the only classical native-GUI alternative to Apple Mail that is still actively supportet and developed". That is not enough to prove that something is notable. A WP:BEFORE search only found the sources ^[1] and ^[2], but those sources are not enough to indicate WP:NOTABILITY as the second source mentioned only trivially mentions GyazMail. The first source is not significant coverage of the subject so the subject is not notable. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep or Merge. While this one-programmer project has not to-date had the same impact as the late Phil Katz's PKZIP, the clock is still ticking for GyazMail. Also, author Goichi Hirakawa, and his 2003-2017 (14 years) accomplishment compares favorably with that of Steve Dorner's Eudora's 1988-2006 range (18 years). Pi314m (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see the point why the article about GyazMail should be deleted. We have also an article about Trojitá and Mulberry (email client). Mulberry wasn't actively developed since 2007 and became nowadays completely unusable because of its outdated codebase. Most clients with an article have very likely less users than GyazMail and many of them aren't even actively developed anymore. Besides that, Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia, so there is no need to save paper. Actually I perceive these recurring requests for deletion as aggravating and pointless trolling. Liebeskind (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: another reference [67] Liebeskind (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another two sources: [68], [69] Liebeskind (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The focus should be on the notability of the subject. The arguments used seem very similar to some of the ones listed here Subjective importance. Another essay which provides a good point as well: Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two thirds of the mail clients mentioned on Wikipedia are less notable than GyazMail. Do you really want to delete all of them? Liebeskind (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 01:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A perfectly reasonable nomination when unsourced, but we now have Macworld reviews from 2005, 2008 and 2013 in the article. They aren't huge, but the are neutral and independent and directly related to the product. A product of this longevity that has been noted and reviewed in independent trade publications repeatedly would appear to safely cross the notability threshold.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is 2-3 reliable sources have been identified, but the rest seem a bit questionable, so it might not pass the notability guideline as the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

None of the links except the top one are valid for each disambiguation page. The RM at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation)#Requested move 27 September 2017 did not have a consensus to move. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose, or make section on BB dabs: Personally, I think it's important to disambiguate the various seasons of a spin-off show of a gigantic franchise and series in its numerous countries. These articles have just as much right to exist as the Big Brother 2 (disambiguation), etc. pages. However, if they "don't have place" as articles, maybe there should be a section on the BB2, etc. disambiguation pages for the CBB editions. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary level of navigation. Per the recent move discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 (disambiguation), Celebrity Big Brother should be the central WP:CONCEPTDAB page for all versions and seasons. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely editorially. Since Celebrity Big Brother 4 redirects to Celebrity Big Brother, these aren't useful. Also (as per above), the UK is the only country to have had more than one season of Celebrity Big Brother under that name, at least so far. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Northern Region BBYO[edit]

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

WP:BRANCH -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Branch, and clear COI for creator. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't include local and regional groupings of national or international groups open to general membership per WP:BRANCH, why would we have an article on a regional groupings of an organization whose membership is limited to the followers of a certain religion? After having more than one article taken to deletion on this general subject, it's getting difficult to AGF of the creator of this advitorial. John from Idegon (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BBYO has an article. Adding articles for regional branches is akin to making separate articles for Boy Scout Troops.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BRANCH. The religious character of the organization is irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability--that this was a promotional piece is quite clear. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Multiple sources have been added that prove notability. This truly is a legitimate organization with both local and international recognition. Mark612 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2017

most of those "sources" are small, local. not the kind of sources that would satisfy WP:BRANCH. branches of notable organizations are not automatically notable, rather, must be notable in their own right. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:46, 8 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 Hereford#Media. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations in Hereford[edit]

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

Listicle that duplicates information already present in the main Hereford article or introduces new unsourced information counter to WP:LISTCOMPANY. Serves no encyclopedic purpose split from the main article. Seems like WP:LISTCRUFT for the purpose of having a list. Ham tech person 00:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is at Hereford#Media and there will never be so many stations that this list is too long for the main article. Additionally this title is ambiguous as it could mean either "radio stations broadcast from Hereford" (not all on the current list) or "radio stations receivable in Hereford" (a lot more than currently listed).--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hereford#Media as a plausible search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hereford#Media as per Bushranger. –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 9 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.