< 22 August	24 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ric_Richardson#Haventec. Going with redirect as a middle ground in the delete/merge/redirect spectrum. The history is still here so if anybody really wants to pull something out to merge into the target, they can do so (be sure to cite the source in the edit summary per WP:SMERGE to preserve attribution). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haventec[edit]

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

The two sources included in the article are the only sources on the company (excluding anything published by the company). Fails WP:NCORP. menaechmi (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. It appears that much of the notability is inherited from the founder Ric Richardson and the company does not appear to be notable in its own right. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Ric Richardson § Haventec. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a line using the sources in the article to Ric Richardson § Haventec. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH but can be discussed in the article of its founder.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ric_Richardson#Haventec; not independently notable. No need for a merge, as the subject is already sufficiently covered in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Sparks[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor/performer. Quis separabit? 23:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 5 citations on the page, 4 of which don't even mention her once. The other is a trivial mention amongst the cast-list with an empty biography. No evidence at all of media coverage, peer review or notability. Darthamender (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fa11on[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced vanity article of non notable person. Stellaseeker (talk) 23:09, 23 August 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 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kinda new to wikipedia and not really sure how to stop this article from deletion. The page is about an musician, composer and television personality from the UK. She has recently changed her stage name but, still has notable work under her other names. - TV Work under the name Vicky Fallon ^[1] as a composer under the name O’neill and as singer ( in the band smoke2seven) for a song that charted in the UK ^[2] Also preformed under Fallon as a featured artist and as composer for the song by Alan Braxe called nightwatcher ^[3] What would be the steps to correct the sources as I feel the article provides many examples of her notable work?Ashlee444 (talk)

References

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a redirect to Abz Love. I'm not convinced of her notability, much of which derives from Abz Love and Smoke 2 Seven (who may be notable, having had a UK #26 single). People aren't notable on the basis of either people they're in a relationship with or bands they are in, so a redirect to Abz Love might be more appropriate (well-cited material might be merged there, or an article on Smoke 2 Seven might be created). Sources cited are generally tabloid gossip-style coverage, which isn't a good source per WP:RS. She doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN in her own right, and hasn't done much as a songwriter (a Sugababes b-side and the occasional other release but no big hits, as far as I can tell). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WP:COMPOSER item 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition, does she not meet the criteria? I feel as a co-writer on 2 songs with Smoke 2 seven that have charted would qualify. Same with the writing credits for the song with Alan Braxe which was released as a single, she was also a featured artist on that track.Ashlee444 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 06:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passses WP:COMPOSER but the tabloid sourced personal info should be removed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I had to search using her real name to find news articles. Agree article can use trimming. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four (Golden State Warriors)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am having a hard time coming up with a specific WP guideline to cite here, but to me this doesn't seem notable enough to have it's own WP page. One source is cited as calling the 4 players the "Fantastic Four." The closest parallel I could draw was "The Dream Team" and even a notable nickname such as that one still directs to the page 1992 United States men's Olympic basketball team. Comatmebro (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 creation --38.96.9.224 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article isn't quiiiite G4-able (based on the version kept at Deletionpedia), but delete for the same reason as the previous AfD. I'm also not sure it'd be a common enough search term to redirect it. menaechmi (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; no sign this is a notable term. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Unlike Splash Brothers, this is a non-notable group nickname in terms of coverage. gongshow talk 04:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no SIGCOV. DrStrauss talk 11:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG for now. Who knows, maybe things will change in ten years, but that's just crystal ballin'... Carrite (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Porter (Jersey)[edit]

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

Subject of article does not meet notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. As defined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics.2Ftrack_.26_field_and_long-distance_running Article also contains no references to back up any claims. ReccesWashout (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations or independent coverage in reliable, published sources. No evidence of notability. Winning a gold medal would not automatically confer notability to a subject so winning a silver does not meet WP:GNG Darthamender (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by User:RHaworth as WP:G11, G12 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford UPSTART[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable program lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - as advertising (non-admin closure) . Whpq (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford UPSTART[edit]

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

WP:PROMO. Written in first person e.g. "our founder", G11 tag removed by creator. DrStrauss talk 19:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rush (band)#History. Consensus is that this does not need it's own page. It's still a valid search term though, and no one objected to redirecting it to the relevant section in the paretn page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rush[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Product of 2006 FAC, largely unsourced and technically falls under BLP, and many other bands do not have separate History page. Kept in 2008, but consensus may have changed since then. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep no valid reason for deletion.....if it needs sources add them......clicking on the find sources link above leeds to thousands of sources on this topic. Moxy (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I don't see why the history section of the main article isn't enough. I feel like that section should be improved rather than have two separate and largely redundant texts. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Tonystewart14: A lot of other bands don't have separate history articles. If the effort was made, you could move the information to the main article without compromising quality, I am sure the main article could be re-evaluated for FA status. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Rush (band). If any content is worth keeping, move it there. There is no precedent for this article to exist, as it is largely duplication of what's already on the band's article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anything that can be moved to the main Rush article, I would like to see it there before it potentially gets deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is made up of the stuff purged from the main article during the FA review..... best not to jam it back in......one of the reasons it lost its FA Satu was because this merger was tried.....and lead to FA demotion......lots of work went in to moving this stuff back to this article .Moxy (talk)

Comment: @Moxy: By your logic, you can't be bothered to actually go through the information and move it to the main article with sources to help up the quality. Black Sabbath has a hstory that is just as long as Rush, but they don't have their own history article. Why is Rush given preferential treatment? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little puzzled... if you have a separate "History" article it's usually because it's much larger than the "summary" in the main article... but that doesn't seem to be the case here – it's only about 300 words longer (out of nearly 5000), which suggests it's largely a duplication of Rush (band)#History, so it doesn't really explain why a separate article is needed or why the main article can't be improved instead. Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Richard3120: By Moxy's logic, it would be too much work because a lot of work went into the history article. They don't want to be bothered to actually go through the information put in the main article and source it to help up the quality. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicative of the history section of Rush. Huge swaths of unsourced fan essay, as opposed to the band page, which is sourced out pretty well. Sort of resembles a POV fork in that regard. Carrite (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH and Carrite. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this is mostly repetitive--if less elaborate--information from the parent article. It's problematic that much of it appears original research (although portions are sourced) and POV rather than encyclopedic. Cut that stuff away and what's left is something that more properly belongs with the parent article; indeed, that is the place one would expect to find this information. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW Keep. Easily meets WP:NACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kammen[edit]

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

The article relies heavily on primary sources and the subject of the article is only marginally notable. This article appears to be a vanity article and puffery piece. Has some recent press mention and some published works, but overall does not appear to be a mainstream researcher based on the listed sources in the article. Wikipedia certainly cannot list every single college professor who has written papers unless they have somehow distinguished themselves in a particular field. I have reviewed many of his papers and I don't find them particularly notable. His political career may be notable, but I would like to see the views of other editors regarding this. Any college professor can dump white papers by publishing in journals but they have to be distinguished and notable to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Octoberwoodland. Daniel Kammen is clearly a dinstinguished professor and currently the center of a major news story for resigning from his state department post in reaction to President Trump's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask4me10 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I mightily disagree with the political views of Kammen and his interpretation of President Trump's comments, I don't see any reason why his career shouldn't warrant a Wikipedia page. Being selected as a U.S. Science Envoy by the State Department, in addition to his position at Berkeley, is certainly notable and much more than the average college professor. I wouldn't say the current news story is that significant, but altogether Kammen's resume shouldn't justify deletion. Octoberwoodland describes many of Kammen's papers not "particularly notable" -- I'll credit him for speaking his opinion, but certainly the State Department and UC-Berkeley didn't think his papers were "trashy" (although I hate the majority of university professors for my own way).- A Guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.254.206 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ACADEMIC. Google scholar search shows that his scholarship is widely cited in his field satisfying criteria 1. His position as science envoy satisfies criteria 2. His position as a fellow at the African Academy of Sciences satisfies criteria 3. He is a distinguished professor at UC-Berkeley which satisfies criteria 5. These are more objective criteria than "does not appear to be a mainstream researcher" and "I have reviewed many of his papers and I don't find them particularly notable". Further the rationale of "Any college professor can dump volumes of trashy white papers with their brain farts by publishing in journals" shows a contempt to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep — Another time-wasting deletion attempt because somebody's name was in the news. Easily meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 for membership in selective groups (four times over: 1 Energy and Resources Group, 2. Goldman School of Public Policy, 3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and 4. U.S. Science Envoy). Also meets WP:NACADEMIC #5: holds or has held a named chair/distinguished professor chair, for being the 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy at UC Berkeley. And then there's the small thing of being one of the lead authors of the IPCC report that shared the 2007 Nobel Prize, meeting NACADEMIC #2, or just GNG. Also meets WP:AUTHOR for having written a significant body of work consisting of hundreds of journal articles, and 12 books, at least several of which have "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Significant news and book coverage of Daniel Kammen spans back at least as far back as 2001, meeting WP:GNG. So at a cursory glance, the subject has met at SEVEN separate criteria for notability, any one of which is sufficient. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you make some good arguments, however, all of these references and sources you rely on are not currently in the article or properly sourced, which leaves us with a poorly written and poorly sourced article. How about adding some of them to the article so his accomplishments are properly represented. As it stands, the current article fails to mention all this wonderful content you seem to have located online. I am having a hard time determining which of it would be useful or relevant. How about you add some of it to this article so it does not get deleted. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bratland. @Octoberwoodland: I don't think Wikipedia works that way. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether this page warrants deletion. Useful contributions should not be press-ganged into additional work beyond the original spirit of contribution. Any person here can make these edits. If they don't get made, it's because each of us decided—for our own reasons—that we had better outlets for our energy on the margin.

To make a point, I just googled "IPCC Daniel Kammen", second link: "Daniel Kammen is a coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007." This from erg.berkeley.edu

Furthermore: "Kammen is the author of over 300 journal publications, 6 books, 30 technical reports, and has testified in front of state and US House and Senate over 30 times." This is not difficult stuff, the subject is hardly hiding under an obscure rock. — MaxEnt 02:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — U.S. Science Envoys usually serve for one year. He was appointed in March 2016 (over 1 year ago). Clearly, his departure at this point is no big deal. It is not clear in this article what his accomplishments are or how significant his role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is. There are an incredibly large number of members on that panel. This article seems to imply that he had an integral role in the panel being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but what is there to substantiate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.213.65 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have suitable coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:NMG -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jae-hwan (singer)[edit]

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

Individual likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NMG. He has not done anything major musically to qualify for an article; his most notable aspect is being a member of Wanna One, and winning a TV show competition and even then he has not made any releases to his own name. Abdotorg (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 21:07, 23 August 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 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was winner of reality show Vocal War. Besides, he has severl single, and has musical career as a boy band Wanna One. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – He has no solo singles, all this charted songs listed at Kim Jae-hwan (singer)#Other charted songs are either with Produce 101 or other collaborations, while his own song from Vocal War didnt charted. And just being a member of the group does not make him notable in any way per WP:NMUSIC. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality show winner. It's notable career. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAND, "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable". Snowflake91 (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Vocal War. not Produce 101. He participated reality show as a solo artist. See WP:BAND, Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. Kanghuitari (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal War is not "major music competition", its just another of 10,000 Korean variety/reality shows. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal War is quiet notable show in South Korea. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kanghuitari's comments. He was been awarded as The one who won the god of in the reality show. -- Countles (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Above comment has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of Kanghuitari. ℯ xplicit 00:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails WP:GNG (no individual coverage in reliable sources, with exception of routine short reports about Wanna One activities). By the way, per WP:DUCK test, I strongly suspect that Countles and Kanghuitari are the same person – for example, they were doing the same edits in May 2017, like here and in other categories regarding filming locations, and now this user magically appears after more than 3 months of inactivity, just few minutes after Kanghuitari posted. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very bad,I don't know that person. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Snowflake91. He is not independently notable. His song releases for Vocal War also didn't chart otherwise he has no notable songs. It's all related to his job as a member of Wanna One.--Thebestwinter (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. For someone who helped clean this page, it pains me to do this, but I really do believe that the individual fails the criteria enumerated in WP:NMG. Besides, the page can be restored later once the individual finally does something notable that fits the criteria listed on WP:NMG. Eugh jei ♥ Kaorin 15:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas McCarver[edit]

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

Somewhat of a procedural nomination. This was tagged G12, but was taken from Everipedia, ~~which has a proper license~~ (Actually, CC-BY-SA 4.0 is incompatible 04:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)), but obvious promotional issues. A Google news search finds no mentions before his death, so new coverage of his death would still means he fails WP:BLP1E. Coverage after his death is also mostly from tabloids. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than 8th place at Mr. Olympia and 2nd place at Arnold Classic, I couldn't find anything of note. Brandmeister^talk 20:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, and death does not establish notability. Content regarding his death is speculatory content from his girlfriend that was published in a UK tabloid. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Patar knight: was taken from Everipedia, which has a proper license Actually, it doesn't: CC-BY-SA 4.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia for text according to Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adam9007: Noted, I've amended my nomination statement. Thanks for pointing this out! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was not notable before his passing, is not notable since passing. Fails WP:GNG. Just because someone dies does not automatically mean they get an article. WereWolf (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created because he placed 8th in the super bowl of his sport and 2nd in the second most respected competition..... not because he died, assume good faith. GuzzyG (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That alone is not enough to warrant an article. If it were it'd have been created long before he died. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was and i didn't make the article, i understand Wikipedias outdated and draconian notability requirements quite clearly. I am just stating that it is hardly the fault of the creator to not realize that someone who came eighth in the highest competition in their sport is not notable while someone who plays one match in a mainstream sport is. Easy mistake. GuzzyG (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Van Goethem syndrome[edit]

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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=radio-digito-facial+dysplasia is only reference found and it is a case study, have looked at other possible sources but have found nothing Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete as nominator~~--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling to find sources that are any good which say anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note a link to [1] notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine has been placed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the available sources appear to consist of the paper mentioned above and a few other sources citing it or referring to it. Doesn't have enough coverage to meet notability standards. Hut 8.5 20:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - as advertising (non-admin closure) . Whpq (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford UPSTART[edit]

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

WP:PROMO. Written in first person e.g. "our founder", G11 tag removed by creator. DrStrauss talk 19:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11, entirely promotional DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westcourt Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Two sources are scientific papers which have nothing to do with the subject at hand, the others are business listings, passing mentions and someone getting a job with the firm. Kleuske (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very strange sources but fails WP:CORPDEPTH and reads very much like an advert. No merit here Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads a bit too much like an advertisement. Also goes into too much detail, as noted above. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Spangles[edit]

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

~~Do not meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep released one album on a major label, Capitol, and does have an allmusic bio and an album review, coverage in The Independent here, Nypress.com, stereogum song 19, Popmatters Village Voice, CMJ (Christian Music Journal), Dallas Observer, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306's findings; multiple examples of coverage which meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. This site lists some additional sources in print. gongshow talk 04:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination my error. Boleyn (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Already speedied :D (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 17:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Prasad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Promotional. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashaly P Joy[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:JOURNALIST, doesnt pass WP:GNG either. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails both GNG and JOURNALIST; basically fancruft. Quis separabit? 23:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com How does fancruft amount to deletion? "Fancruft means people want to know more about the person. Moreover she has got adequate fan following in Tamilnadu, a state of India." It should be a Keep 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC) ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashikmb555 (talk • contribs)

@Ashikmb555 -- Are you blind? I added "basically fancruft" but the basis was GNG and JOURNALIST, which I stand by, as well as my vote for deletion. Quis separabit? 18:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashikmb555 -- "Fancruft means people want to know more about the person. Moreover she has got adequate fan following in Tamilnadu, a state of India" -- NO, it does not mean that on Wikipedia. So, please learn the rules of editing Wikipedia before creating articles or voting on articles recommended for deletion. You received a welcome on your talk page and that welcome shows what you need to read to learn how to edit properly. I suggest you read all the recommended sections in that message, delineated for just that purpose. Quis separabit? 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://www.chinnathiraiulagam.in/2017/06/29/ashley-p-joy/

Delete article is based on bio from her organization and her linkedin page. She comes no where near meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World News Media[edit]

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

Firstly, I should disclose my COI as an employee of the company in question. I am also a newcomer to Wikipedia and attribute any initial disruptive editing to this. I believe that I have put my case forward in a neutral and civil manner and in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. To get a full picture, it is probably best to visit the talk page for World News Media Talk:World_News_Media Content on the page, even after subsequent edits appears biased and as such WP:NPOV is violated. WP:CORP is also violated as the company has no inherent or inherited notability Scottrouse (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for World News Media[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 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Without yet weighing in on the merits of this nomination, the article is now vastly different from the version that triggered the dispute on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company and its awards have sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The majority of the sources given are press releases or self-published content and therefore notability has not been established. The editors have not taken into account NPOV. To quote the guidelines: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another". While considerable efforts have been made over the past day or so, the article remains woefully unbalanced. You focus solely on one of our publications and our awards in order to prop up what appears to be a malevolent agenda while refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion or indeed explain your edits despite repeated calls to do so. I still welcome meaningful discussion from the editors Scottrouse (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim I feel there are enough sources that provide significant coverages towards the company to keep the article, but we need to trim awards / claims that are soley based on primary sources, whether from this company or from the Botswana Corprate Watchdog group. It's going to be much smaller, but that's probably correct for a company like this and given the existing secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Ravensfire, Thank you for your input and guidance here. Taking into account that awards represent only part of what we do as a company how do you feel about WP:IMPARTIAL? Scottrouse (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is helpful to have numerous sources in order to demonstrate that this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." With regard to the COI editor who eventually admitted that they work for the company, and who has sought to remove what they have described as "incorrect" or "defamatory" content, they have made no effort to identify other reliable sources that might present their activities in a more favourable light. The article satisfies WP:NPOV, as it reflects what is available in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any grounds for deletion. WP:NPOV is only a reason for deletion if the article cannot be fixed, and the only person who has a problem with point of view is themself far from NPOV, being an employee of the organisation. There are other processes on Wikipedia for handling disputes over bias and article content, as has already been pointed out on the article comment page, but as far as I can tell they haven't been invoked. People trying to edit their employer's article should probably read Streisand Effect and browse through List of Wikipedia controversies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not helpful to discussion to point out an 'eventual' admission as it suggests that I knowingly transgressed Wikipedia rules. I have tried to remain transparent throughout. I have chosen not to hide behind a username, and by this I don't mean to offend those on Wikipedia who choose to (far from it). As I have already stated, any errors in process are due to being a newcomer and have been apologised for. As a company we don't seek glowing references in the form of independent sources on the internet, we just try to do the best that we can for our clients, be it print, web, video or through other content promotion. We are however subject to occasional posts and articles online which do not paint us in a positive light. I don't believe this is grounds for the creation and maintenance of a page devoted to only one side of our business that is actively reported on. I would be willing to keep the article in place if, as User:Colapeninsula has helpfully suggested, problems with WP:NPOV can be fixed. With regard to other avenues of handling disputes, you must again forgive me, it has only been a couple of days since I discovered the page's existence and I am learning your guidelines as I go. I will explore these avenues - thank you User:Colapeninsula. Scottrouse (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the use of small local papers reporting on local companies, and some odd misrepresentations of sourcing (it's not THE guardian) I am leaning towards delete, but it may just need work. All looks a tad to puffery for me.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the "local" papers? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about the Trinidad and Tobago guardian?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a national paper, established in 1917, the oldest in that country: Trinidad and Tobago Guardian. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also where is the in depth analysis of these awards (which seems to be the main focus of the article) why are there so few sources announcing the awards overall (rather then just triumphing one (almost always local to the newspapers) companies win)? this is what I mean by "local paper" newspapers published in one (often small) country that seem to just be acting as vanity pieces for the award winner, and no in depth coverage of the wards themselves. The point is there is no real coverage beyond mere local interest except for two sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for the majority of the sources. I don't think we can say that we won't use them just because they are not published in London or the U.S., and that doesn't make them "local". There are numerous other sources for the awards, just do a Google search, but obviously we want reliable third party sources and naturally the majority of the sources relating to the awards are from the giver or the recipient as people like to boast about their awards. Hence the focus on third party sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about notability, we know it exists, but coverage has to be in depth, not trivial mentions about X company won this award". The point is that none of these "local sources" are any thing more then trivial mention, they do not establish notability (except maybe for the awardee). Hell it is a London based ward and yet we only have (in truth) one UK source for this notable event.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article was not intended to appear as "puffery". This all started because of a long article in The Times a month ago about the Europe Business Assembly. This led to starting articles about other companies highlighted in a report from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, as it didn't seem fair to focus on just one company. And as we already had an article on vanity award, the corresponding category was started. Edwardx (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is the the sources are largely puffery of local award winners, not in depth new stories. In essence this is an article about a minor vanity ward, as such it should not have it's own article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make any moral judgement about the legitimacy of the awards or the business. People are clearly prepared to buy what they are selling. It's just a matter of whether sufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability. It seems, when combined, that they do even if we would like them to be more in depth and more numerous. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No but we do need Significant coverage of the subject, not just a trivial mentions. The fact is that what we have a trivial mentions of "X local company today won an award". Now if in depth coverage of this ward exists then lets see it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find sufficient reliable third party sources about the publisher in order to write a neutral article and the company's website provides little information beyond the address. What little coverage it has is in minor publications complaining about its awards. I don't know if the criticism is accurate, but would like to see better coverage before including it. Even then, it would come under "People notable for only one event." TFD (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough combined reliable sources referenced within the article to verify its present content and immediate expansion is not needed, so WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eurovision Asia Song Contest 2018#Provisional list of participating countries. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest[edit]

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

I think it's too early. The contest was just announced and there is almost no information about it. I think we first must have this information in an article about Eurovision Asia Song Contest itself. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest 2018#Provisional list of participating countries where this information is already included, there's no need here for AFD process. See WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest 2018#Provisional list of participating countries: Postdlf is right... when the contest goes ahead the main article will obviously include all the participating countries anyway, so there's no need for a separate list. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:TOOSOON for this level of detail. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision Asia Song Contest 2018#Provisional list of participating countries – Too soon, as contest was just announced. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11, promotion DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Sawyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads a bit strangely, very promotional, and fails biography notability. DrStrauss talk 06:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher S. Raj[edit]

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

The person in the article is a professor at JNU and a Fullbirght Scholar. But does not have sufficient enough reason to have a separate bio page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete. Citations to his works in GS not sufficient for notability. Xxanthippe (talk).
Delete Just not seeing much that shows he's anything other than an average professor. JamesG5 (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than run of the mill coverage Spiderone 10:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talha Nadeem[edit]

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

this bio created by a SPA, only contains non-RS. the subjects fails to meet both basic WP:GNG and WP:SINGERS. Saqib (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this profile for making wikipedia pages of some undergound musicans of Pakistan who are famous in small audience and doing good work under less resposes and exposure. Please help me in making thier pages and please remove your deletion request on Talha Nadeem's page as this is my first page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talha_Nadeem) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PakistaniMusic1 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — PakistaniMusic1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article holds significant importance as this guy is becoming a role model for many underground musician of Pakistan. His Facebook page reached above 151,000 followers and he is getting famous day by day. Please approve his page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverLake77 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — SilverLake77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Awesome page about the rising singer and emerging artist. This should not be deleted. I have checked the references as well they are great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitalha4 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted the article under CSD G11. It was created and recreated via Checkuser confirmed sock accounts (all three of which commented above as if they were unrelated individuals) in what is obviously a paid editing endeavour. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pon Ondru Kandein[edit]

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

The article violates WP:NFF, since shooting for the subject film begins in the end of August this year (http://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/270717/pon-ondru-kandein-from-august-end.html) Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the starring actors Tamannaah or Vishnu Vishal. — TheMagnificentist 10:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits} 02:36, 8 August 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)}}} 05:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently WP:TOOSOON; re-create if it does ever meet the guidelines; I don't think a redirect to one of the actors would be appropriate either Spiderone 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real coverage, articles really focus on Tamannaah. Fails WP:NFILM. I agree WP:TOOSOON if at all. --Bejnar (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reema Lagoo#Personal life. —SpacemanSpiff 11:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Lagoo[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Redirect to his wife, Reema Lagoo, who was famous. Edwardx (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Lagoo is a theater writer/actor and film actor in Marathi. He is husband of Reema but that is not his identity. He has worked in many TV serials, Marathi plays and films. Unfortunately, there are not much references available on internet regarding Vivek but lot of content must be available in hard copy in various magazines. I have added few details but I suggest, other contributors can help in finding and adding more details in the article and should help in enhancing the article. I do not see any point in deleting this article. Kautuk1 (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see some sources pointing toward N, but not sure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR currently; lack of independent sources to justify the existence of an article Spiderone 10:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reema Lagoo#Personal_life, per WP:ATD-R. They were mentioned many times in the reliable sources as her husband, e.g. see here & here. Relevant details are already there in the aforementioned section. So, it seems a valid search term. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - I really do not understand, when he has written so many plays and acted in many, the required references are provided now, why he can not have independent article? Kautuk1 (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Locomotives in use in the UK[edit]

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

Article appears to be a duplicate of existing UK railway lists. For example, the rolling stock used by franchises are in the article itself, and there are lists detailing units by class there. Additionally, the article features lots of duplication - see the many appearances of the Class 158 in this list. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find a concise list of all of the rolling stock in one place on the internet when I created this article. Yes the rolling stock used by franchises are in the individual articles (which is where the information came from) but I feel this article is useful because it brings all of those lists together in one place. Also, the only reason the Class 158 is on this list so many list so many times is because seven different operators use it. Mindi Crayon (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not knowledgeable in the general topic area, but this looks like a useful, informative, comprehensive compilation of things of a certain type. As wp:CLT covers, having a list is complementary to having categories (such as Category:British Rail diesel multiple units, etc.), allowing for photographs and notes and sources. As a small note, I think the word "Locomotives" should be downcased in the article title, and perhaps UK should be "United Kingdom". --do ncr am 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit heavily. This article seems to mostly contain multiple units, which are NOT locomotives. If you go to the Locomotive page it clearly states;" A locomotive or engine is a rail transport vehicle that provides the motive power for a train. A locomotive has no payload capacity of its own, and its sole purpose is to move the train along the tracks. In contrast, some trains have self-propelled payload-carrying vehicles. These are not normally considered locomotives, and may be referred to as multiple units, motor coaches or railcars." Dr Sludge (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears useful enough to warrant inclusion. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swazi Airways[edit]

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

The airline never launched per this source. Does not seem notable to have an article on a tiny airline that never even operated a flight. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple independent sources.--TM 19:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transport in Swaziland. It's a failed plan for an airline, not an airline. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it never launched a product, it certainly seemed to generate enough news to make it noteworthy. In my searches I found a number of news articles about it ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], among many others). As one article noted, it was "launched with great fanfare"; it apparently died much the same way. WP:NOTTEMPORARY would suggest that the topic remains notable even if the airline ultimately failed to launch. Cthomas3 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist: to discuss sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Irfan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage for a stand-alone article. Not notable per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article of Al Arabiya talks about them in detail. This book also talks about them. I can't read this Urdu article of Nawa-i-Waqt, but it seems to be about them. They also seem to be major attraction at Mushairas around the world, e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. Anyway, there might be Urdu sources about them, so Urdu speakers' participation will be helpful. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NitinMlk. Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article would benefit from listing the 5 books of his it mentions, with publisher names so as to potentially indicate whether notable publishers consider this person notable. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gunther[edit]

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

Biography (there's dispute about whether it's a WP:BLP or not) of a porn actor whose only stated or sourced indication of notability per WP:PORNBIO is that he won the "Biggest Bitch on Set" award one year for being a total PITA to actually work with. This is not a viable or compelling notability claim for a porn actor, but nothing else here is any stronger -- and neither is the sourcing, which depends on one deadlinked primary source profile on the website of his own former employer and two glancing namechecks of his existence in references that are primarily about other things. Which thus brings us to the biggest problem of all: there has been an edit war raging for several years now over claims that he died in 1997, and that claim persistently relies on user-generated sources like IMDb and genealogy databases because reliable source coverage that would properly verify it is completely nonexistent. There simply isn't enough legitimate sourcing here to get him over WP:GNG, and there's no notability claim strong enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG, regardless of whether he's alive or dead. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete The sourcing is just about non-existent and I can find noting better. Doesn't meet GNG. PORNBIO isn't in play either. David in DC (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies and lacks significant RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notable sources, doesn't meet GNG for biographies and not enough coverage.--ClrView (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom and pretty nuch all of the above. That winning an award as "Biggest Bitch on Set" was considered encyclopedic content tells you how low our standards for coverage of this field have been. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly meets GNG and PORNBIO; no valid reason for deletion and therefore closing per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Stitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently "Norma" has the largest breasts in the world. That's it. The last AfD was started in 2004. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 01:18, 23 August 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 August 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No reason for deletion has been provided, unless breast size is considered an argument. Clearly has the necessary coverage to satisfy notability requirements. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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