< 23 August 25 August >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manningham accent[edit]

Manningham accent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be an actual studied accent. The only reference I can find that doesn't lead back here and isn't a random pairing of the words is here, which isn't enough. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:50, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fastroi[edit]

Fastroi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NCORP. The one notable achievement is reaching the finals in a 2012 healthcare solution competition - from what I could pull from the source they did not win the competition. Aside from that, nothing notable is really provided in the article, making me think that the company simply isn't notable enough, or covered in reliable secondary sources enough, to have its own WP page. Comatmebro (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KTAP66 (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the feedback. I am happy to provide additional content in the article right away, concerning the the significance of Fastroi. The company is the largest provider in its field; i.e. the market leader in Finland, and it has been growing fast; being one of the fastest growing technology companies in Finland for several years. So, I hope these additions (with third party references) will make the article better.

KTAP66 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)About the healthcare soluton competition - the company won the Finnish heat, which is mentioned in the article now.[reply]

Dotzler71 (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)We are not looking to create a spam page. This is a legitimate and successful company with an existing wiki page in Finnish. The comments posted so far are very ambiguous, in that we cannot seemingly demonstrate our achievements or notability without being accused of spamming or self promotion. Instead of trying to delete the page out of hand without allowing the discussion to proceed, we would appreciate some guidance as to what it is specifically that the community is objecting to, so that we can remedy it and publish the page.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Dumplings: A Tasty Chinese Tale[edit]

Boy Dumplings: A Tasty Chinese Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Created by an editor with a probable WP:COI. Edwardx (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 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) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lay scholar[edit]

Lay scholar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More like an Urban Dictionary entry than an encyclopedic one. It's a term, yes, but there is no notable uses for it and no references other than one to a use of potentially homophonous term that bears no relation. Almost no inbound links as well. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no comments for delete. KTC (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adamjee Cantonment Public School & College[edit]

Adamjee Cantonment Public School & College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable College and all information provided is unsourced NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 21:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:10, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Taslimi[edit]

Parviz Taslimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable person. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:GNG as well (because of lack of sigcov). —usernamekiran(talk) 20:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:14, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kandel[edit]

Elizabeth Kandel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Loads of sources, but nothing that seems substantial enough; they are either mentions in articles about something else or routine directory entries. TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 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. MBisanz talk 12:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meducation[edit]

Meducation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source searches are not demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT is met. North America1000 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:12, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum Newsweekly[edit]

The Forum Newsweekly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Just a poorly sourced advert with name-drops for journalists who, actually, mostly don't seem to be notable themselves (not that their notability would matter). Sitush (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 09:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:12, 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. MBisanz talk 12:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlota Nunez Strutt[edit]

Carlota Nunez Strutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability. She's claimed as the president of an NGO, but there's no substance here about her career beyond stating that she exists -- and the only sourcing present here at all consists of her own Twitter account and the her "our board" profile on the NGO's own self-published website, which are not notability-building sources. She could certainly be eligible to have a Wikipedia article if she could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but presidents of NGOs are not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, and "she exists" is all this article shows or sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 12:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about me, but I would rather not appear on Wikipedia and I don't think that the work that I am doing for this organization is especially newsworthy, as it is a student organization. I don't think I should have a wiki page, as I currently just am a student who chairs an NGO, and I'd also appreciate the privacy of not having this page. Thanks a lot for your understanding. Carlota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlota17 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 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. MBisanz talk 12:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tevana[edit]

Thomas Tevana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such coverage found. Fails the notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 12:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikidia[edit]

Vikidia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, as per source searches. North America1000 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luney Tunez[edit]

Luney Tunez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a record producer, who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't reliably sourcing them. There are just two references being cited here, of which one is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, and the other is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a blurb about somebody else. These are not the kinds of sources it takes to pass a Wikipedia notability standard: Wikipedia is highly prone to abuse by publicity-seeking wannabes, so a person cannot get into Wikipedia just by nattering on about himself in interviews, but rather must be written about in depth and in the third person by people other than himself; and he has to be the subject of a source, not just have his existence namechecked. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source him better than this, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON if this is the best anyone can do. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 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. MBisanz talk 12:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wilkins[edit]

Sean Wilkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a technical and textbook writer, referenced entirely to his own self-published profiles on the websites of directly affiliated organizations and companies with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all. As always, every writer does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because his books can be verified as existing -- he must pass WP:CREATIVE for something, and must be the subject of reliable source coverage to verify it independently of his own self-created web presence. We are an encyclopedia, not a free LinkedIn clone. And while I can't prove anything definitive, I strongly suspect a direct conflict of interest since the photo was taken directly from his own website but claimed to be under public domain copyright permissions. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat I wrote the article with no affiliation or conflict. This individual has over 30 publications which are verifiable by numerous references and sources. I'm happy to continue to contribute, but maybe you should as well. The particular photo in question is also published on numerous websites, in addition to his bio in published materials. There are similar technical writers on Wikipedia with less verifiable information. Since this is my first article, and wanted to try and do something simple, I'm looking for guidance on what independently sources we are looking for here. For example Barns and Noble has his materials posted. Does this meet the criteria? From the WP:CREATIVE guidelines, Sean Wilkins is also cited and referenced in numerous works that he is not the author of, and papers with citations. Would these qualify if added? Thanks. --Toddman4 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, online bookstores don't count, because every book available for sale there will automatically have a profile. And no, simply being cited in other people's works isn't a notability criterion either — he has to be the subject of other people's works, not just have his name mentioned, before those works assist notability at all. The only type of sourcing that can support notability for Wikipedia's purposes is reliable source coverage about him in media: books about him, newspaper articles about him, magazine profiles about him, documentary films about him, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional information. I was looking at Bill_Thompson_(technology_writer) as a reference, and see a lot of similarities between these two articles. I do see 1 reference where an article is written about the subject, however all of the other references are either broken or similar to this article. I believe there may be some available media sources that we can use for this article. I'll search and update based on the criteria. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddman4 (talkcontribs) 23:54, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hall Enterprise Company[edit]

Grand Hall Enterprise Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently no notable content. Shaded0 (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:22, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Canada by languages spoken[edit]

List of Prime Ministers of Canada by languages spoken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of Iceland by languages spoken, this is not a topic that requires a dedicated article of its own. While I'll acknowledge that the question of whether a non-francophone Prime Minister's skills in French are adequate or not does come up as an issue in Canadian politics (usually in regards to their ability to participate in the French-language election debates), the appropriate place for any discussion of that would be in Prime Minister of Canada and/or Bilingualism in Canada, not a standalone spinoff list -- and a Canadian prime minister's fluency or lack thereof in Gaelic, German, Greek, Latin or Russian is simply irrelevant trivia. And this isn't based on sources which analyze the language skills of Canadian prime ministers as a topic, either -- it's based on glancing mentions of their language skills in sources which aren't about that, with the result that the comparison table is entirely missing seven of the prime ministers because sourcing for their language skills hasn't been located at all -- which means that the article is synthesizing sources to create an article topic that hasn't been comprehensively analyzed as such. There's a place in Wikipedia for a small amount of content about the English-French issue, certainly — but that place is in other articles that already exist, not as a standalone article in its own right, and there's no need at all for any content about whether they can speak Greek or Russian. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sources, at least, only discuss their bilingualism in French and English (which, as per others, is occasionally an issue), rather than their command of other languages, although I note there's a passing mention of one claiming to speak Russian and not being able to do so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Fluent French Now" is a professional language coach's personal advertising blog, not a media source. And the CBC link certainly permits us to properly source something about this, but it doesn't really help us reach the depth of sourcing needed to support a full standalone article about it. A short subsection in Prime Minister of Canada and/or existing articles on language in Canada about the fact that it's considered important for a Prime Minister to be able to speak both English and French would be fine — but it's not systematically analyzed in depth by enough sources to justify a whole separate article about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 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. MBisanz talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Eddy Saint Paul[edit]

Jean Eddy Saint Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill academic. Edwardx (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 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. MBisanz talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thimbles (Card game)[edit]

Thimbles (Card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources about this game. The blog post linked does not mention playing cards. ... discospinster talk 16:26, 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. MBisanz talk 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durgesh Kaushik[edit]

Durgesh Kaushik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person and article seems to be written by the person himself; Notability not estabished by cited articles; Citations are promotional in nature and Linkedin/Facebook/Social Media profiles cannot be used as citations on Wikipedia User:ParadiseStark (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that much more independent recognition and coverage is required for a person to be included on Wikipedia. Only two of the articles shown by Spiderone cover the mentioned person in detail. Citing [[8]], a biographical page can be created if the person fulfils the following criteria: 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. 3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

The mentioned person doesn't meet any of the above criteria as of now. He may be on his way to become notable as he has achieved a lot, but as of now, the article doesn't deserve to be online. To cite a couple of cases, Rajan Anandan, one of the most prominent angel investors in India and Head of Google South Asia and Zishaan Hayath, Founder Toppr and another prominent angel investor do not have Wikipedia pages.

We need to maintain a certain standard for notability which, in my opinion, is not fulfilled here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseStark (talkcontribs) 09:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and LinkedIn don't count towards notability I'm afraid Spiderone 09:20, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J.R. Renaud[edit]

Paul J.R. Renaud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear notable. See previous revisions of the article for more references (I have removed sections for copyright violations), but those sources do not appear to substantially prove notability. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 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. MBisanz talk 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the Healer Project[edit]

Christ the Healer Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it pursues an admirable cause, this charity fails organisation inclusion guidelines as it has received little coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are some issues with the tone as the article is formatted more like a website Q&A than an encyclopedia article. DrStrauss talk 12:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 12:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 12:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same but I've been getting speedies declined on grounds of age. Not that that's a valid rationale but... DrStrauss talk 22:25, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Sentimental Reasons (band)[edit]

For Sentimental Reasons (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little coverage in independent, reliable sources. A Google search for ""For Sentimental Reasons" "bob devivo"" returns only 43 results, none of which are major reviews. Fails notability guidelines for musical groups. DrStrauss talk 12:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 12:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 12:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 12:08, 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. MBisanz talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SLSP LTD[edit]

SLSP LTD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I guess there is a slender assertion of notability, but imo not a convincing one. TheLongTone (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 10:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 10:48, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy May Shead[edit]

Amy May Shead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical WP:BLP1E case. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bate[edit]

Adrian Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real demonstration of notability. No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:07, 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. MBisanz talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Narsian[edit]

Sushil Narsian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Of transient popular interest. Not encyclopedic. Insufficient material to warrant a page. Ex nihil (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:08, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aalok Pradhan (film)[edit]

Aalok Pradhan (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real demonstration of notability. No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:01, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Wlassikoff[edit]

Michel Wlassikoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable graphic designer. KDS4444 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ps. and the French edition of the above book is held in over 100 libraries. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 28 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. MBisanz talk 12:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haysha Deitsch[edit]

Haysha Deitsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and according to their resume they don't pass WP:NACTOR. The closest thing he has to a substantial role in a notable piece of work is his role in Jezebel. This article also calls Friend Me an "acclaimed series", which is curious, since the sitcom appears to actually never have aired. But that just goes to the entire promotional tone of the article. Onel5969 TT me 17:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:14, 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. MBisanz talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobble Keyboard[edit]

Bobble Keyboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article with only PR related sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR 20:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:12, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørnar Iversen[edit]

Bjørnar Iversen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The CEO of Songa Offshore. He has plenty of passing mentions, but not the in-depth coverage required by the WP:BLP policy(WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8). menaechmi (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:00, 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 no consensus. SoWhy 10:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SLM Solutions Group AG[edit]

SLM Solutions Group AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is entirely sourced from related references. Lack of independent, reliable sources for some of the claims (I have removed some of them by now). Internet search did not result in any significant results beyond regular corporate chatter, i.e. press releases, corporate results, stock analysis. Mention in passing around failed take over by GE. Therefore, fails WP:CORP. There is also some indication of WP:PROMO or WP:COI as this and related users seem to exclusively work on contents for this company, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OldMonk25. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 06:04, 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 merge to Ambassadors Group. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BookRags[edit]

BookRags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG, per source searches. Sources are not providing significant coverage, just passing mentions or listings. North America1000 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the sources above do not contain significant coverage, and some are only providing passing mentions. North America1000 05:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Telegraph's 637-word review provides substantial coverage of the subject and the Versus 142-word review provides significant coverage of the subject. Neither are passing mentions.

    I provided multiple sources that provided less than significant coverage because of WP:BASIC, which says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Although WP:BASIC is under Wikipedia:Notability (people), I consider the principle applicable to other topics like this one.

    Cunard (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We'll have to agree to disagree about applying WP:BASIC toward non-biography topics; I don't feel that it should pertain to non-bio topics, because when it was written, it was intended only for bio topics. North America1000 22:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we do not apply WP:BASIC to websites, there is significant coverage in The Telegraph and Versus.

    Cunard (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 06:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to your contributions, your account was created 21 July 2017 and this is the first AfD you have participated in so you are not experienced in AfD discussions. To clarify about Wikipedia guidelines, WP:NOBODYREADSIT is not a policy-based reason for deletion.

    Cunard (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at each of the articles about competitors listed in the 'See also' section and there's questionable notability on some of those, too, and York Notes has no references at all - I have tagged it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:27, 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cram.com[edit]

Cram.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG, as per source searches. North America1000 02:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Cunard: Those sources come across as passing mentions, rather than significant coverage, though. North America1000 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source (368 words about Flashcard Exchange), second source (at least 500 words about Cram.com), and third source (410 words about Flashcard Exchange) are substantial reviews of the subject. They are not passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 06:03, 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. Of note is that a check prior to deletion using Earwig Copyvio (results) did not demonstrate any copyright infringement in the former article. North America1000 01:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Toon Twister 3D[edit]

Nickelodeon Toon Twister 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded as "Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable computer game. No reliable sources in article or found to show the notability of this game. There are a few sites that mention it (confirming its existence) , and some fan sites that talk about, but nothing showing that it is worth an article." PROD removed but the issues were not addressed and the article has not been touched in over one month. Meters (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article also violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, with multiple references to the reader in the second person and an emphasis on instructions on how to play the game. I suspect that that portions are a copy of the software instruction manual. Meters (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either a deletion or a redirect, but I though the redirect made sense since the target article actually lists this piece of software. Meters (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 06:00, 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Marie Denha[edit]

Crystal Marie Denha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article subject is not notable. It was prodded when there was only one imdb reference. Creator deprodded and added a plethora of unreliable references. Fails WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC(talk) 00:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:59, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ichraq Qamar[edit]

Ichraq Qamar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-written vanity page, doesn't meet notability for music and the claims as a model and as a TV celebrity also appear to be at too low a level. Looking at refs with Google translate, these seem to be poor sources too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:40, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Focaloid Technologies[edit]

Focaloid Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what's present in the article is passing mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Hudnall[edit]

James D. Hudnall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seem to be two sources, both of which are primary and associated with the subject — and none of which are any longer live. Carl Fredrik talk 22:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This notes that he was asking people to give Trump a change, this says he started working for Breitbart ? DS (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so add those sources. What you are saying otherwise is that the article is currently insufficient, but can be rescued. That still means it should be deleted. Carl Fredrik talk 10:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: - There is no WP:DEADLINE. I have found sources that demonstrate notability, so deletion is not the correct action. Don't be so WP:IMPATIENT. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: — WP:the deadline is now. Deletion is not only about notability, but about whether the article actually stands up to scrutiny, for example see WP:BLPPROD

For unsourced articles about living persons created after 18 March 2010, adding ((subst:prod blp)) will propose the BLP for deletion. If sources are not added within 10 days, the article may be deleted.

Every second we allow a CV-type promotional article to stay on WP is a second that it decreases the overall quality of WP. Carl Fredrik talk 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added all these sources to the article as external links. BLPROD didn't and doesn't apply, which I'm guessing is why you didn't use it first. The essay you linked is primarily about false information, not unsourced information. Please clarify which of the Reasons for deletion you think applies here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't apply, that is only through a formality, it still applies in essence (the 2010 cut-off is arbitrary). No, the reason is I wasn't aware of it, since I do not tend to edit biographies. EL:s do not increase the standard of the content, and do not exclude it from being deleted.
Wikipedia draws no line between unsourced and false information. If no-one is willing to source the information it may as well be false — and keeping unsourced information in the encyclopedia is akin to allowing falsehoods per WP:VERIFY.
You have the following reasons WP:G11, WP:DEL4 & WP:DEL9 Carl Fredrik talk 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLPPROD doesn't apply because it's for articles that "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)".
G11 (pages that are exclusively promotional) and and DEL4 are jokes, right? What about this page seems promotional to you?
To DEL9, the solution is to remove the unsourced material, not delete the whole article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like an unapologetic summary of his work-life, like a CV. Only two statements are actually sourced in the article. The one that he has been sued, and the one that he has received some award. None of them support the first sentence of the article.
So, what that means is that BLPPROD applies, because there are essentially nothing but passing mentions used as sources, and what you seem to have left out:

To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography.

That he is involved in a law-suit is not exactly a statement about him, (even though the source includes other information, but it isn't used to support that).
I'm surprised we allow so horrible articles to go unsourced, just because they could be sourced. If nothing else I will remove all unsourced material. Carl Fredrik talk 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have understood the lawsuit. He wasn't sued. He did the suing. Because he wasn't credited as creating something. The whole lawsuit was about Hudnall and his work. You're calling that a passing mention? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont Interchange[edit]

Fremont Interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PROD-ed, was nominated because the article "fails to meet WP:GNG: lacks 'significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject'." The de-PROD reason was that other large interchanges have articles, yet any with articles have to meet WP:GNG, which this article does not. Imzadi 1979  02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that it is the only interchange specifically mentioned in the introduction of the List of road interchanges in the United States article, so it seems pretty important. :) Also, while I !vote "Keep", a lesser alternative to outright deletion would be to merge/redirect to that list-article. --doncram 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it's there because you just created that list article and you put it in the lead of that list, which I would presume is just a dump of the corresponding categories. I don't deny that interchanges can be notable, but as a rule the reason they are is because they are notorious for their traffic problems and/or accidents, and have required a lot of redesign over the years. There is no evidence for that here. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ya got me there, about creating the list-article, which was needed. :) An interchange can cost up to $1.7 billion, apparently. The list-article immediately has a dozen major interchanges in California, but just this one so far in Oregon. I do tend to believe it is one of the most major interchanges in the state, if not the top one, which is a claim of importance. I am not sure how to search for coverage of it, really. Wikipedia coverage in this area is spotty so far, I and some others are just figuring this out. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of road interchanges in the United States was started but will likely be closed as SNOW KEEP. This Oregon interchange article needs a little time to get sorted out; I say keep and revisit in six months or a year, and I bet we will have systematic coverage of all the interchanges with $ costs and numbers of ramps and miles of roadway involved and more good stuff. If there is too much impatience here because some editors don't yet believe these topics (and this Oregon one) are important, then I don't terribly mind if this is redirected to List of road interchanges in the United States#Fremont Interchange for the time being, until I re-create it. :) --doncram 04:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a notable interchange, and that's all the list will contain, then how can such a redirect be justified? Look, the article really makes no claim to notability anyway. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you succeed in getting this article deleted on basis that it is deemed "not Wikipedia-notable", you will not succeed in getting the item deleted from the list-article, because list-item-notability is different, and sources exist, and there can obviously be a sourced entry about it in the list. I suppose we could have a battle at the list-article's Talk page about defining list-item-notability. Please note: having the list-article is a "good thing" for deletionists, because it can be the redirect/merge target for marginal articles. However, you have also nominated the list-article for deletion. Especially while that AFD is open, it is more important to Keep this article.
It appears (i am not sure though) that it is the biggest interchange in Oregon, and I bet that its eventual reconstruction will cost one or more billions of dollars when it has to happen, based on prices for others that I have seen now. Some comments on sources below. The list-article now has a reference to an article headlined "8 monster interchanges that blight American cities", where I think the author didn't write the headline. The article covers huge cost to construct some of these and huge consequences of millions of person-years involved in congestion before these were built or reconstructed, or if they are not functioning smoothly. These interchanges are not blights; they are amazing treasures which allow urban areas to function. I would say the Fremont Interchange is under-appreciated in Wikipedia, although I don't know if the Portland area or Oregon as a state properly/fully appreciates it or not, though the state Department of Transportation probably does; deletion of the article is not the way forward. Sources do exist; it is better to develop than to delete or even to redirect/merge. This is a huge item. As a matter of perspective, it is more important than many/most populated places in the United States, more important than most roadways covered by WikiProject U.S. Roads. --doncram 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-5 was constructed during the first half of the 1960s. This includes the roadway and the structures, so these elements are now more than forty years old. There has not been major reconstruction of any of these elements. The Fremont Bridge and the I-405 (Fremont) Interchange were constructed about ten years later in the first half of the 1970s.

and there's more in that document.
There's this report about i-5 closure there or nearby (i am not sure where the "Burnside Bridge" is. Someone local could understand the Google hits better than me, and/or find better hits with variations on the search. It seems that construction on related highway 84 and various bridges nearby might be more pressing in recent years, but anyhow, the Fremont Interchange exists and is huge, and will surely cost hundreds of millions to replace when it must be replaced. Coverage of its construction in 1970s and how it was no doubt one of the great marvels of the Western world, then, are not found easily online. But certainly there would have been tons about it, and notability is not temporary. --doncram 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an option to merge the Fremont Interchange and the Fremont Bridge into a combo article, if they were in fact planned together and built at the same time. I would leave that to local editors. --doncram 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See below. –Fredddie 21:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is utterly silly to check just first page of results of just "Fremont Interchange", when yes that is not used commonly as the name for the intersection, just as in Los Angeles no one knows what is the "Pregerson Interchange", everyone knows it as the I-110 - I-105 interchange. And when there is a different interchange in Fremont, California, and when it has been pointed out above that searching differently gets more relevant results. Like I said before, try searching on "i-5 i-405 interchange Portland".
For example, this review of chokepoints in Oregon mentions "$800 million-$1.3 billion" cost of potential improvement to this interchange, with "$300-350 million for improvements to Broadway/Weidler and widen I-5 to 3 lanes" as a lesser improvement which is in fact happening. I was so far ignoring the large amount of available coverage on the Weidler-related construction which is going forward, and which can be viewed as is part of this interchange. --doncram 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that if "Fremont Interchange" were a common name, I would get some Google hits and I wouldn't have to search for "the I-5, I-405, and I-84 interchange"? (Fremont Interchange Portland search results) The hits that seem relevant are mostly talking about the interchange on the south bank of the Willamette River not on the north side.. For comparison's sake, here is Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange, where most of the hits are relevant. Nobody is doubting any of the statistics that you've mention, doncram, so I'm starting to think that since they're inextricably linked, maybe we should move the content to Fremont Bridge and all sleep better tonight. –Fredddie 21:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you'd get far more coverage of the I-105/I-110 interchange in Los Angeles if you searched on how it is usually referred to, than if you search on "Pregerson", which no one in Los Angeles has ever heard of, it certainly is not mentioned in traffic reports about congestion/accidents/construction. That one in the middle of Los Angeles is a much busier interchange than the busiest interchange in the state of Oregon, so searching on its non-common name yields more than searching on the non-common name for the Oregon one. Using the Pregerson and Fremont names seems preferable for the titles of Wikipedia articles, but those aren't the common names.
About making a combo article with the bridge, that would be okay by me. I suggested that as a possibility above, but actually the bridge is different, and there is a usual style for bridge articles with categories and so on, and I actually think the interchange should be separate. --doncram 21:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC) --doncram 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
#29 Most Dangerous
I-5 Near Exit 302A/Mile Point 302.76-302.95
Portland, Multnomah County
Total Crashes: 34
Fatalities: 1
Injuries: 19
Property Damage: 14 
and
#23 Most Dangerous
I-5 Near Exit 302A/Mile Point 302.52-302.76
Portland, Multnomah County
Total Crashes: 140 
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 65
Property Damage: 75
and
#18 Most Dangerous
I-5/Mile Point 300.19-300.51
Portland, Multnomah County
Total Crashes: 155
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 77
Property Damage: 78
which compare to:
#1 Most Dangerous
US-26 & I-405
Portland, Multnomah County
Total Crashes: 381
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 213
Property Damage: 168
It seems one interchange includes more than one "intersection" and there is no total available for all accidents at the interchange. --doncram 16:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, among results found by searching on "Exit 302" within ODOT there is diagram of the I-5/I-405 interchange with daily traffic counts for 2015 in [http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Ramps_2015.pdf this ODOT document at PDF page 20 (its page 168), with 35,320 and 39,140 being the two busiest ramps of the diagram labelled "East Fremont - Exit 302B".
Another option which could be done after this AFD is to convert the Fremont Interchange article into something like Interchanges in Pennsylvania, which hasn't been questioned, knock on wood. --doncram 16:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, what? Should we create 60 articles, one for each of those interchanges? --Rschen7754 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea would be just 1 article for Oregon interchanges, avoiding future separate articles and AFDs. --doncram 20:19, 28 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of busiest railway stations in Europe[edit]

List of busiest railway stations in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate collection of original research. Aside from the figures suffering from linkrot, making verification difficult, there's no easy way of proving this list is correct. Indeed, I note that several figures for the Swiss stations have been challenged as failing verification, and the London stations don't seem to match up either, which throws the whole list into question.

If an individual source summarising this list exists (I can see the Gare du Nord is mentioned as the busiest in numerous places, but nothing else), then we can probably resolve this, but I can't find one. If we can't find anything, the whole thing needs blowing up and starting over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you think List of the busiest airports in Europe should be deleted too? That also is sourced from various national statistics --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ritchie333, I have problems to understand your objections – besides the huge problem of listing rankings with different sources, i.e. without a coordinating body/organization normalizing the different approaches of statistics and the different approaches of collecting figures. But there are a huge number of such questionable lists on WP!! – Regarding the Swiss figures: the given figures are hardly easier to verify; the given reference is working and therefore easily verifable. What exactely is your problem with it? -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the problem is described in Notability of standalone lists - "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". I have not found a source that shows the list itself is notable, and hence the article would seem to be original research. This explains why trying to improve it is a complete pain, as with these lists you can normally start with a source like that, which will get you most of the way there. This list doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 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 02:08, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The figures may well be accurate but they are only figures for particular stations in particular countries. We don't know whether there are other stations that may be in other countries with higher passenger numbers than those on the list. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 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 Deleted under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR 06:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call Connection[edit]

Call Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America1000 01:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:58, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EURACTIV[edit]

EURACTIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Importance of this organization is unclear and doesn't seem to be substantiated by reliable sources per WP:NWEB or other relevant notable guideline. The only really strong independent source in the article (niemanlab.org) suggests that they basically translate news from other outlets, this is not clearly what a Wikipedia article is for, vice a notable newspaper or online publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we know they say they are vital and stuff, but are they? Who says so? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note By the sheer volume of its partnership with other MSM's and its own original content, I'm sure everyone here can excuse my thinking that this proposed deletion was some kind of joke--after all, even the most minimal of research shows who they are. (EURACTIV.com with AFP and Reuters)[11] (By Sam Morgan | EURACTIV.com)[12] (By Samuel White | EURACTIV.com)[13] (and here's a ton more too)[14] Thanks, and no offense meant either. ScotKreek (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No joke, sorry. What you"ve given there are a bunch of stories published by Euractiv. By definition they are not independent RSes, which is exact what the article is lacking. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "EURACTIV quoted" isn't what is needed here to demonstrate notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline linked states "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis mine) but what was offered was not that. What was offered was random reprints with Euractive bylines like Forbes: "...what EURActiv says that UNEP has just said...". If crediting a news source creates notability, I'm puzzled. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The very first "source" linked there, Forbes, begins its article with "...what EURActiv says that UNEP has just said." First of all, starting an article with this phrasing, right before explaining why said EURActiv article was wholly inappropriate, really only helps to completely undermine the credibility of the content they are referring to; and given that Forbes is, well, Forbes, I am more inclined to believe their opinion on a source's credibility than that of a one-year-old wiki account with an attitude problem. Forbes then proceeds to call out EURActiv in detail and with examples, for highly inaccurately representing the content of the original UNEP report in question; however, this Forbes article is fairly outdated (2011) so their link to the original UNEP report is broken.
    The second "source" listed, National Review, is extremely brief, wasting no time in highlighting EURActiv's extremely self-contradictory statements, and literally ending the article with a statement about laughing... at EURActiv. They link to two EURActiv articles; in the latter, EURActiv writes, "[this report] will also come as an embarrassment for EU officials who had hailed the results of the 2014 poll for finally reversing a trend of declining voter engagement..." seemingly oblivious to their article not even three full months earlier, to which NR also links to, wherein EURActiv does exactly that embarrassing thing.
    To avoid becoming very TL;DR I will stop here at 2/6 but if needed I can absolutely explain why those other links are equally useless for establishing EURActiv's credibility. Zeebowbop (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. A google search for the phrase "according to (source)" is not coverage directly and detail. Not to mention that WP:GHITS is a canonically bad AfD argument. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Meaning...? — fortunavelut luna 00:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@fortuna velut luna... it's possible that due to its large editorial staff TonyTheTiger might feel the site meets WP:RS. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes lots of editors and lots of content out there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A large staff might be persuasive if it were independently verified, and there were a ENWP guideline automatically conferring notability on reliable sources. The first condition certainly has not been met. And there is no such RS=GNG guideline that I am aware of. The nearest is "frequently cited by other reliable sources" in WP:NMEDIA, but that a) is an essay not a guideline and b) applies to periodicals only. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEBYOTHERS may be seen as more useful. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:55, 28 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. MBisanz talk 12:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nzamba Kitonga[edit]

Nzamba Kitonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable local politician. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Edwardx (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can't keep an article just because improved sourcing might be possible — to earn a keep on inadequate sourcing, it would have to be definitively shown that the sources necessary to improve it do exist, not just asserted that maybe just maybe they might, who knows. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said it could do with improvement, not that it was non-existent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said it could do with improvement without showing any actual evidence that such improvement is possible at all. That's what I'm talking about: it's not enough to just assume that maybe the improved sourcing required might exist somewhere, but rather to get it kept on that basis you would need to actually show evidence that the improved sourcing required does exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 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 01:34, 8 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 • Help! 02:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 12:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition and Custom Museum[edit]

Tradition and Custom Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. found no coverage in Malay or English for its current or former name. the 2 sources provided merely confirm it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--doncram 04:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a public attraction. It's a museum. It's a sensible public service for Wikipedia to provide info on museums". no, there is no inherent notability for museums. I have tried under those old names, you obviously didn't even bother to click the gnews search because it's zero results. your !vote is WP:MUSTBESOURCES. please provide actual evidence of sources instead of WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one thing, searching just by clicking on your "find sources" link doesn't work well. Try searching on "Alor Gajah" museum rather than "Alor Gajah Museum" works better.
  • It is covered in Lonely Planet guidebook, a very good one. "Malaysia, Singapore & Brunei - Page 254 - Google Books Result [23] / Simon Richmond - 2010 - ‎Travel: "Sights Right in Alor Gajah Square is the Museum of Custom and Tradition (admission RM1; h9am-5.30pm Wed-Thu&Sat&Sun, 9am-12.15pm&2.45-5.30pmFri), ..." and I can't see the rest of the information provided.
  • I saw a review which described it as having started pretty much as a local history museum, which later broadened to cover Malay culture. Sorry, i don't have the link now.
LibStar, your habit of responding ping-pong style to every comment which does not agree 100% with you is annoying. Please consider not replying to this comment, and not to other comments by other editors. --doncram 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot make another editor in an AfD to stop replying, you need to stop saying there are sources and actually list them in your first response, it's rather ping pong of you. and jumping to the conclusion that everything is suddenly inherently notable when it isn't. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Planet like any travel guide is hardly an advancer of notability, hotels also appear in Lonely Planet. travel guides tend to only prove the entity exists. and if Lonely Planet is the best source you can come up with it's hardly a case for notability. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trying to stifle someone who has an opposing view to you in an AfD, is it because you don't want your arguments contested? LibStar (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a few lines in a 646 page travel guide hardly advances notability. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:39, 8 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 • Help! 02:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 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. MBisanz talk 12:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabthams Vision[edit]

Sabthams Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company. The "23 industry awards" are movies and TV productions (and the people involved) who have won awards, and where Sabthams Vision wa in some way involved with the same production. No evidence that Sabthams Vision itself has won any notable awards or hasa received significant attention. Fram (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 8 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 • Help! 02:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love Songs (Bobby Vinton album)[edit]

Love Songs (Bobby Vinton album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another unnotable compilation that lacks significant secondary coverage and/or chart entries. Would everyone be in agreement if I created an AfD in the near future that lists all Bobby Vinyon comps that have the same issues? I am finding a serious case of fandom. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 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. MBisanz talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go Sidewalk Surfing![edit]

Go Sidewalk Surfing! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The album did not chart on any notable music lists. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure)fortunavelut luna 04:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AI Global Media[edit]

AI Global Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability; Seems to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Chris Troutman (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Philafrenzy: I don't think that's what NCORP or GNG says. How do imagine number of magazines published is a criterion? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at the GNG we should consider not just AI but also the coverage of the magazines they publish (and the awards) as they are all the product of the same business. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 31 July 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]
  • "Awards made by AI are accompanied by publicity in the online magazines published by the company for which the winner pays."
This content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood. The article isn't promotional, the company's activities are to market bogus awards that promote their clients. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 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. MBisanz talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayastan Jan[edit]

Hayastan Jan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable song I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 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.  Sandstein  12:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NRM apologist[edit]

NRM apologist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original Research Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for NRM apologist[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 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. Alex ShihTalk 06:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SHAREE (NGO)[edit]

SHAREE (NGO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG for lack of available sources independent of the subject. - MrX 11:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 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. MBisanz talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method[edit]

Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article only provides generic sourcing from initial edits in 2008. Massive copyvio of https://www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/5837fd04c28cb.pdf, http://www.iracst.org/ijrmt/papers/Vol2no12012/5vol2no1.pdf and possibly original papers describing the method. General notability not asserted in article. Also WP:NOTMANUAL.

Either nuke the article per WP:TNT or do a complete rewrite to summarize the method and its relations with other articles covering the field of safety analysis. — JFG talk 07:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the hell out of it. CREAM is only one variant of Human reliability analysis, and not any more notable than many others. None of these methods has been proved to be better than the others, just more acceptable to engineers and designers. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Famousdog (c) 07:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete artricle. See Hollnagel's own disclaimer form 2012 on [1] Rjdeboer29 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC) rjdeboer29[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cooper Stimpson[edit]

Jack Cooper Stimpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, his most notable role seems to have been in Chubby Funny, but in general he hasn't received significant attention yet. Fram (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:50, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Brockwell[edit]

Holly Brockwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails General Notability Guideline. "Notable" only for being a person hired by Jimmy Wales for his new commercial enterprise, "WikiTribune." Includes personal medical details that are nobody's fucking business, non-newsworthy. A letter to the editor of the Guardian (op-ed) and a sensational Daily Mail follow up (does not count towards GNG per consensus) does not cut it. Carrite (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 10:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:49, 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 redirect to Terra Holdings. MBisanz talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halstead Property[edit]

Halstead Property (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, as available sources in various internet searches consist of routine coverage, passing mentions, quotations from company personnel, public relations content and directory listings. North America1000 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We would need redirects from Halstead Property and Brown Harris Stevens to Terra Holdings and would be able to cover all three in one article. gidonb (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with you on this, and I should have mentioned it. It is pretty standard as a general practice to cover merged firms under the newer and comprehensive name with sections for the earlier-- unless when one of the earlier firm is very much more important, which is not the case here-- the name Terra \Holdings may still not be widely known, but as an actual business enterprise its the combination we want to talk about. (Or for unusually large and complex holding company situations, again not the case here) and in fact this would be a good technique also in with businesses where numerous semi-notable firms exists; WP:NOT explicitly suggests a combination article in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 14:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, thank you for your support and your ever so insightful comments! In this AfD I eluded to the pain with companies that organize a parent company into functional or spatial units. The units can be companies or non-companies and often are notable. See in the AfD how I had to plead for a sensible organization and my request was heard. With mega-sized companies these unit companies provide opportunities for structural organization of information, when the article of the parent is too large. With regular large companies, however, these units empty the parent of meaningful content or, more frequently and partially alongside, just duplicate the content with temporal and tone inconsistencies because each article lives its own life. With newspapers and magazines (in my example) the problem becomes even worse yet these companies are a general challenge. This is a side further to your comments. Glad to see that you continue to provide excellent feedback at AfDs, not focused on deleting or keeping but, rather, on making WP work! gidonb (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we (again) delete notable information and for clarity I wish to add that if the article is not rewritten into a new one, it should be kept. Hence keep was the first part of my opinion above. gidonb (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I commented that it "seemed" that way. Secondly, consensus isn't !vote count. The delete !voters gave their policy-based assertions, but the keep !voters just made some claims of the above company's notability without providing in-depth coverage in third-party sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. If such bare claims can prove WP notability, then everything will become notable. In fact, the odd suggestion by you has resulted in the creation of its "highly notable" parent company's article, which also seems non-notable to me. As that article has been created now, I will request you to add in-depth third-party sources to the article, although that's irrelevant to this AfD. – NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 17:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – You created the article in good faith, but you should've asked the relevant participants to provide sources first. Anyway, now that Terra Holdings has been created & its notability isn't the concern of this AfD, I guess Halstead Property can be redirected there as there's hardly any relevant content to merge. BTW, only the very last sentence of the Halstead Property stub seems merge-worthy to Terra Holdings, but even that sentence's claims are outdated, as the sources are 15-16 years old. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Mountain Software[edit]

Cougar Mountain Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deemed non-notable in the 2006 AfD. It is possible for a company that wasn't notable then to be notable today, but I have seen no evidence that this is one of those cases. What I see is an article written almost entirely by a company employee citing sources that lack depth and/or independence, and that needs to be deleted again. Furrykiller (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a G4, then where was the XfD that produced a "regular" delete result? —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
here Furrykiller (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cougar Mountain Software previously produced CMS Professional, but this legacy product will reach its end of life in September 2017." Etc.
Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate web site. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Otherwise, just an unremarkable private company going about its business. Sources lack sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH. Blomberg.com mentioned above is a user-submitted directory listing, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to our article, Bloomberg L.P in 2008 was worth 22.5 billion.  "In 2000, Bloomberg News included more than 2,300 editors and reporters in 100 countries."  Bloomberg depends on reliability of its information as part of its business model.  Who are these "users" who are "submitting", and where do they "submit"?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Unscintillating: Although Bloomberg is reputable as a news source, the company profiles that it provides are not created by Bloomberg, but are a third-party product. For example, on the page linked in this article, it clearly says: "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global. Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content". This does not mean that the information is necessarily incorrect (or even promotional), but it does not carry the weight of Bloomberg's name as an editorial entity. bd2412 T 13:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that Bloomberg is the publisher and it is their name that is damaged if readers find erroneous information?  S&P Global is itself a global company with 17,000 employees, so they have the resources to provide editorial and legal oversight to protect both their own name and that of their customer.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, Bloomberg protects their own name by providing a disclaimer explicitly stating that this material, though hosted under their name, is not their work. I don't think it could be any clearer than Bloomberg itself stating "Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content". bd2412 T 11:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The titlebar of the page is "Cougar Mountain Software Inc.: Private Company Information - Bloomberg".  Bloomberg is the publisher of the profile and publishes the disclaimer, and we trust Bloomberg as the reliable source that says, "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No current consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "a source that establishes notability"?  WP:GNG requires "sources", which is generally understood as "two good sources".  As for "discussion", who are these "users" who are "submitting", and where do they "submit"?  As for RSN, see [34] (note that this source was previously known as investing.businessweek.com).  Unscintillating (talk) 09:44, 17 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, Jdcomix (talk) 01:47, 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. MBisanz talk 12:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odunsi (The Engine)[edit]

Odunsi (The Engine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is still an up and coming artist. None of his singles (as a lead or featured artist) are notable. Nothing in the article shows the artist being a major player in the Nigerian music scene.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Odunsi (The Engine) meets seven criterias of MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Also, the sources cited in the article are independent of him. Also, the artist's is rated b-list or also called New Wave artist[9] in Nigeria just like "Kah-Lo", " Moelogo", "Ric Hassani", "SoJay", "T'Jan", "Ajebutter22", "Boogey" & Mavin recording artist "Johnny Drille", etc. Note: Some of the artists mentioned haven't even charted on any country's official music charts. --Obari2Kay (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://erikhollnagel.com/ideas/cream.html.
  2. ^ "Odunsi's latest release 'Situationship' feat. AYLØ listed on Spotify's Top 10 most viral tracks in the U.S | THESEUNBADEJO.COM". TheSeunBadejo. 8 December 2016. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  3. ^ "Spotify Viral 50". Billboard. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  4. ^ "Odunsi The Engine & Nonso Amadi set to headline london show next month | THESEUNBADEJO.COM". TheSeunBadejo. 22 May 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  5. ^ Solanke, Abiola. "Wizkid, Tekno, Davido nominated for Best Single NEA 2017". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  6. ^ Akan, Joey. ""Isoken": Here are all the Nigerian songs contained in Nollywood"s latest hit". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  7. ^ "'Banana Island Ghost' breaks box office record - Vanguard News". Vanguard. 13 August 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  8. ^ "Alternative Nigerian Chart | The Beat 99.9 FM". The Beat 99.9 FM. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  9. ^ Akan, Joey. "New Wave vs Pop Artists: There's a huge difference between Nigeria"s 'Soundcloud Artists' and 'mainstream stars'". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  10. ^ "Ep. 40 OVOSOUND RADIO Playlist - OVO SOUND RADIO". Apple Music. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
  11. ^ "Interview: Santi, Odunsi & GMK on More Life and the OVO Radio co sign". The Culture Custodian. 18 April 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
  12. ^ "Radr Music Issue". Radr Music Issue. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
  13. ^ "HOW EMBRACING HIS ROOTS IS TAKING ODUNSI TO THE WORLD". Radr Magazine. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
  14. ^ Akande, Segun. "NativeLand 2016: Skepta, J Hus, Burna Boy perform as London meets Lagos at concert". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
  15. ^ "Let's Ride The New Wave By Osato Edokpayi - Tush Magazine". Tush Magazine. 13 June 2017. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Polzien[edit]

Brandi Polzien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, Was Prod: "No indication of any significance per WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR only sources in the article are the subject's website or relatives." Still applies. Kleuske (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:40, 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.