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 04:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Coolie (1997 film)

Coolie (1997 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)

non-notable film, current souces have coverage of the career of the actress Sadika Parvin Popy with just trivial mention of the film. See Talk:Coolie_(1997_film)#Notability for more detail. My searches have found nothing helpful to add. Fails to satisfy any elements of WP:NFILMS. Gab4gab (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep The article already proved by strongest reference with the notably guidelines. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 17:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Is it possible for you to mention what notability guideline you believe is satisfied and for that guideline which elements? The new sources you added today make only brief mention of this film. Gab4gab (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is not notable i want to see whats is called notable? You haven't created any article yet. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 06:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If you identify the guideline and elements you feel are satisfied I'll be happy to take a fresh look. The latest sources added are again articles about actors with very brief mentions of this film. Gab4gab (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep Fulfill proved WP:NFILM. References are absolutely fine from the Bangladeshi national newspaper, just like Samakal, Manab Zamin, Jay Jay Din, Prothom Alo, Bhorer Kagoj, Jugantor. Brishti Akter (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the sources you list I see only brief mentions of Coolie in each. Could you say what element(s) of WP:FILM you believe are satisfied by this?
  • Samakal - mentions 'porter' (Coolie) is her 1st film and names the director (about 2 sentences)
  • Manab Zamin - mentions Coolie at the end of a list of Sunny Omar films. (1 sentence)
  • Jay Jay Din - a Popy career article that mentions Coolie is her first film, a blockbuster. (about 2 sentences on the film)
  • Prothom Alo - a Popy has married article, says first film was 'Porter (Coolie)' in 1997 & it was a great success (2 sentences)
  • Bhorer Kagoj - a Popy article, mentions her 1st film was Coolie (1 sentence)
  • Jugantor - mentions Omar Sunny and Popy were in the film Coolie together (1 sentence)

Gab4gab (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Above listed ref. talking about the film and its great success in Bangladesh film industries. The film gained most popularity and great success that's established article most notable. The film was one of the highest grossing film in 1997. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 06:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• delete WP:GNG calls for significant coverage that addressess the topic in detail. The cited sources state only the approximate release date; the names of the film, director, co-stars, and two of the supporting actors; and that it was Popy's first film. This is trivial coverage. If you doubt this, consider that WP:NFSOURCES elaborates that newspaper listings, capsule reviews, and listings in comprehensive film guides (all of which would include at least that much information, and likely more) are not significant coverage - they are insufficient to establish notability.

None of the specialized notability criteria for film are satisfied: no full-length reviews, no historical notability evidenced in the specified ways, no major awards, not selected for a national archive, and not taught at university. With respect to the other criteria to consider:

The director and several of the actors are notable, but it would be difficult to argue that the film was a major part of any of their careers, unless Wikipedia's position is that the first film of any notable actor is by definition a major part of their career. Even if that were the case, the 3-4 sentences of sourced information about the film could be included comfortably in Popy's biography, so the guidelines instruct us not to create an article on the film.

It is not immediately clear whether Bangladesh was a major film producing country in 1997. Even if it wasn't, however, if the film was produced by "Flamingo Movies", then the film wasn't produced by a "major film studio" of Bangladesh. Nor is it notable for anything more than merely having been produced. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Worldbruce. but what you refer to as "notability criteria for film" are not actually notability critera requirements. They are only attributes to encourage searching for sources should the attributes exist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment released film receiving media attention in enough reliable sources to meet WP:NF in Bangladesh and encourage a far more diligent prior to nominations. The film has IMDB page which also proved that the film does exist and it's important. As the current coverage is acceptable, the coverage and the quality of articles on other Wikis look good. In my view, enough to slightly passed WP:NFILM. Brishti Akter (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • • Have you considered changing your 'Strong Keep' position of 9 Jan given your 'slightly passed' comment today? Gab4gab (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Its not 'slightly passed', its 'enough to slightly passed' Gab4gab. No question about notable. Brishti Akter (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
      • It would be helpful @Brishti Akter: for you to explain what specific sources you feel lead to passing what specific elements of what notability standard. It's still a bit of a puzzle how 'enough to slightly passed' would lead to a 'Strong Keep' or 'No question of notable' position. Are you simply taking a WP:ITSNOTABLE position? When I said your previous list of sources had only trivial coverage you didn't respond to my question regarding notability guideline elements satisfied. You haven't pointed to different sources that contain significant coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep easily Passed Wikipedia:NFILM no doubt about the notable of this article and its huge coverage in Bangladesi media. Its sister article bengali is looking good with the 4 references. References are this article directly talking about the film and also its success. David Benzam^Contact 13:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that David Benzam (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. David Benzam has edited on four days in the past eighteen months. On each of those four days they !voted keep at an AfD for an article authored by Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs), and for which Masum Ibn Musa also !voted keep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Coolie (1997 film) Kuli (1997 film) কুলি (১৯৯৭) Montazur Rahman Akbar

• • So many ways to search. Still nothing significant in the article sources or identified here in discussion. Gab4gab (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per meeting WP:NF even if only in Bangladeshi. Sources never have to be substantive just so long as the topic of this 20-year-old film is spoken of directly and enough detail to prevent original research. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Plenty of non-English source has been looked at and included in the article. It's not about the source language, it's about the lack significant coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete The argument for keeping here seems to be that this film is independently notable but examining the sources offered shows they are apparently not about this film itself, but rather about its star. These are, essentially, WP:INHERITED arguments and not helpful. There needs to be more evidence of coverage that is both independent and significant in order to be notable, and that is missing here.

Keep Basically i work in Bengali wikipedia. Not much great exprence in English wikipedia but this artcle much better to estabilshed notbaly guidline with Bangladeshi media coverage. See Bengali version of wikipedia. Agree with @MichaelQSchmidt:. Tmsayfullah (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tmsayfullah: Welcome to the English Wikipedia. It's understandable that on your first day editing here you may not be familiar with our guidelines for notability. The Bengali Porter (film) article you mention has only four sources referenced. Three of them are also references in our article. Bengali ref #1 is our #2, #2 is our #8, #4 is our #12. The fourth is a reference to a BMDB page about the actress Poppy. We don't use that because it's not considered a reliable source. Our article has references to twelve sources while the Bengali article has a third that number. Which leads me to ask why do you feel seeing the Bengali article shows better notability than what we have in the English Wikipedia? In general we look for significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Gab4gab (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator himself has stated that this article passes the General Notability Guideline; the only concern is that it is not currently up to the standards made requisite by the Verifiability policy. The key thing here is that an article's retention falls under WP:GNG. While WP:V is a "policy", that does not mean that it holds some form of authority over all guidelines. (The usage of the term policy is to denote that it is a less bendable rule than a guideline.)

As such, this article's subject is found to be notable. Any issues regarding its current state or content can, and should, be discussed at the article's talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Revolution Document Center

Islamic Revolution Document Center (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 is one of the 3,583 articles created by machine translation scripts using the content translation tool prior to July 2016. There was a community discussion in which it was decided (1) to disable the tool on en.wiki and (2) to pass a new, temporary criterion for speedy deletion at WP:CSD#X2, to enable the removal of these articles. The community accepted that many of these articles are fixable and properly-translated versions of them do belong on the encyclopaedia; but the community felt that machine translations are not reliable. Copyedited fixups of machine translations are also unreliable unless the person who has done the copyediting has dual fluency in the source language as well as English and so can confirm that the script has preserved the original meaning in the source language.

Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, and my prod was unwisely removed with the accurate, but irrelevant, statement that the content "looks to be notable". The concern of course has nothing to do with notability. It's that it isn't verifiable: we don't know that the script has translated the material accurately because nobody with dual fluency has checked it. The effort involved in finding someone with dual fluency in English and Farsi and persuading them to check is utterly disproportionate when these articles were created by scripts, and I'd like to finish this job at some point and I'm hoping to retire in 20 years. So I need the extraordinary measures the community has authorised to be enforced. Help me AfD, you're my only hope! —S Marshall T/C 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete A cursory search in Google (both English and Farsi) only shows WP:ROUTINE coverage and mostly mentions where source material stored in the Center was cited elsewhere. There isn't coverage about the Center. Further, the fa-wiki article where I would expect to see development is also similarly unsourced and short. There's no claim for notability (GNG or NCORP) so it ought to be deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be a major archive in its own country. The issue is not whether or not it's a good article but whether or not it's a notable topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Thanks for such a long explanation on the reasoning behind the nomination. However, there's no reason to delete such a notable topic. Instead, I would ask the creator to complete the article using sources such as ([1], [2] and [3]). More Persian sources can be found on this. This center is referred to by some other reliable sources on other occasions (like this). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep -- However little I may like the present Iranian regime, this is clearly a notable archive repository. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm the article creator. The topic is notable by the sources supporting this. This article is not created by "machine translation scripts using the content translation tool." I will make some more edits and will ask the GOCE to copy edit it. --Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Sources found are very credible. This is a notable and major archive of the Iranian Revolution - can you imagine an American archive being deleted in the same circumstances? AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Nominator's comment: I wrote in my nomination statement The concern of course has nothing to do with notability. It's that it isn't verifiable: we don't know that the script has translated the material accurately because nobody with dual fluency has checked it. This debate is full of "keep" !votes that don't address the reason for deletion. The article creator says above that This article is not created by "machine translation scripts using the content translation tool, which I understand means that his position is that sentences like The first director of the IRDC was Seyed Hamid Rohani. Islamic Revolution Documents Center during its activity has been collect close to one million and seven hundred thousand pages of written documents, sixty thousand photographs, two hundred thousand negatives, twenty-three thousand hours of audio and fifteen thousand hours of video were written by a human. I rather suspect this means it was written by a human who isn't fluent in English, which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that it's been accurately translated.—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is AfD, not cleanup! Poor articles can still be valid articles as far as their topic is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, the topic meets the notability guideline. The content doesn't meet the verifiability policy because nobody with dual fluency has ever checked it. See?—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I understand what the nominator's concerns are. The article requires a good cleanup. Some editor will have to put in the effort. Nevertheless, this is a significant (perhaps the most significant) archive in Iran with respect to the revolution's historic records. There's much sense in keeping the article than deleting it. The two sources I understand above have written in basic detail about the institution. I hope more can be found. Lourdes 06:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edward Paesel

Edward Paesel (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)

Delete; WP:BLP of a former mayor of a village of 10K. This is not large enough to hand a mayor an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL just for existing -- but the sourcing here consists of just one article in the local media about his retirement from a non-notable local committee 26 years after leaving the mayor's chair, which is not even close to enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Concur with nom. Mayor of small village does not meet WP:NPOL and there is no other claim per WP:GNG. Article created by editor who has only contributed to four articles related to this village. MB 01:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

DO NOT Delete Edward Paesel has done much more work for the South Suburbs of Chicago! You clearly are not from the south suburban are of Chicago! Ed Paesel was the Executive Director of South Suburban Mayors and Managers which represented some 45 Communities in the Chicagoland area! The collective population is much greater than 10,000! Why some may feel this is insignificant, there are many others who have done less that are on Wikipedia! So please DO NOT DELTE THIS!!!! He is not only a historic figure of a community, but has played a much greater role in the South Suburbs and State of Illinois!!! Wiszo8

Wikipedia does not keep articles about people who are asserted, but not reliably sourced, as locally notable to a single area — we keep articles about people who are reliably sourced as notable well beyond the purely local level of significance. That is, if you want to demonstrate that he's notable enough for an article, then you need to show more than just purely local coverage, and more than just one piece of referencing about him announcing his retirement from a municipal committee. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Unfortunately Paesel does not meet out notability standards (WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC). NPOL states "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" AusLondonder (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete GNG/BASIC/NPOL fail. No use wasting time discussing this Afd unless reliable sources with significant coverage can be documented. Lourdes 06:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Deputy leader

Deputy leader (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 seem particularly noteworthy. Alligators1974 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Very noteworthy; linked from heaps of articles. Possible early close? J947 22:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Lots of great references and is a crucial position. I see no reason to debate over it further.Brotherlandpol (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Clear mistake by nominator! Agree with above comments. Very noteworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjimenez91 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll grant that the article needs some referencing improvement, but this is a notable concept and an important political role that exists in several countries. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable position that exists in many political parties worldwide. AusLondonder (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly notable with plenty of sources. Usually the second most senior position in a party and does exist across the globe. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• withdraw nomination Seems a pretty resounding consensus. Alligators1974 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

All of US

All of US (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:SOAP for non-notable organization — JFG ^talk 22:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Too new to possibly meet GNG. MB 02:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Only one citation. Possibly this will become a wonderful page, but we need more than this to prove that it is noteworthy.Sgerbic (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete not notable BobLaRouche (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails.Non-notable WP:Org.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Tough to even find sources, given its name. Fails ORG and NONPROFIT. Lourdes 08:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

John Edelman (disambiguation)

John Edelman (disambiguation) (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)

Procedural nomination per the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/John Edelman (disambiguation). Pinging those who participated there, i.e. Exemplo347 and Meters. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• DELETE No need for a disambiguation as the two articles are adequately differentiated by their titles. (John Edelman and John G. Edelman). A hatnote at the top of John Edelman would be sufficient in the event that John G. Edelman survives its AFD. Meters (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC) --- text copied from my post at MFD.
• Delete (as original nominator) - Wikipedia does not have disambiguation pages when there are only two targets. Can I just say sorry for my original mistake with the venue for this discussion - thanks @Godsy: for cleaning up my mess! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia regularly has disambiguation pages with only two entries – when none of them is a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: unnecessary. PamD 09:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Wait. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John G. Edelman looks to be leaning towards deletion, so this dab should be deleted if that happens (which is likely). However, we also have John H. Edelmann (two N's), which could be considered a third entry in the interim. If John G. is deleted, all we would need is mutual hatnotes at John Edelman and John H. Edelmann (because John Edelmann redirects there). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete. The aforementioned AfD was snowing, so I took care of it. Now it's for sure safe to delete this disambiguation page and institute mutual hatnotes instead. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I've been following this for a while, and seeing how suspicious and likely COI it is, I have no other choice but to cast suspicion on the editor, also, this is an unnecessary page that can be substituted with hatnotes. GabetheEditor ^(talk_cont) 14:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Hat note is a far more appropriate solution given that the titles are suitably different. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note I've added hat notes to articles that may be affected by the deletion of this Disambig. page. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete My views are similar to those above. No need for this dab. Lourdes 08:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Chainsaw (band)

Chainsaw (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)

Unsourced, non-notable, sea of red links, somewhat promotional language. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete page is promotional and contains no citations. Editor @Chris Azoeuf: I know you are new here on WP and applaud your efforts. Please start small by improving articles, adding citations and growing with your knowledge before trying to start out writing a full page. I'm sure this could be an interesting page with some work, but build up to it, not start with it. At the moment it is not quite ready for its release. Good luck with your future here on WP.Sgerbic (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Competence Call Center

Competence Call Center (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 any notability. It has won some industry centric awards and its press releases about new office openings have been published , but nothing independent or indicating notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - I could find no mention of this company in reliable independent sources so fails WP:ORGSIG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company, providing little more than listing its standard certifications and industry awards. My searches are finding little beyond some routine announcement coverage of corporate deals between Ardian and Silverfleet regarding this company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. . Mass deletion of pages added by Rodney felder (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Chaz Dowdell films

Clifford Ray's Dave the Taxi Driver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

The Cryptic Tale of Beta Alpha Nu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chute (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CR The Life of Dave the Taxi Driver Fantastic Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chaz Dowdell: Rise of a Legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lewis Wright (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(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)

(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)

Unremarkable new low-budget film on Vimeo. No evidence of notability or impact, and indistinguishable from an advert. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded the list of articles here, all written by the same COI author to promote the filmmaker. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete all. I have expanded this AFD to include all other movies by non-notable producer/actor Chaz Dowdell, whose article has been speedily deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. On the now-deleted talk page, the author of the article says that he is trying to "raise awareness" about this up-and-coming young filmmaker. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I opened the initial AFD and 100% support expanding to include these other films. Delete all. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  Added a book article to the list. Somebody is trying real hard to promote Chaz Dowdell here. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anachronist: is that not grounds for a block? They've been warned multiple times... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the articles themselves aren't really promotional in tone, although taken together you can see the author is clearly trying to give exposure to Chaz Dowdell. I have explained to him that Wikipedia can't be used that way. I think we have a case of a newbie acting in good faith. He could be a good contributor here if he picked more notable subjects to write about. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wichai Sankhachandrananda

Wichai Sankhachandrananda (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)

Deprodded, so taking this to AfD. This is a rather flowery biography of a living person. Until recently, this biography used to be sourced to a "private interview", which violates WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The page creator said during the deprodding to have added sources, but these are merely homepage links of some instutions mentioned in the text. A Thai version was deleted from th-wiki for being a bio using primary sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC).
• Delete. Insufficiently notable. Seligne (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete nothing genuinely matches Wiki standards. Jjimenez91 (talk)
• Keep. More references now being added to this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongkolsak (talk • contribs) 08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC) — Mongkolsak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Still essentially an unsourced personal memoir. No evidence of actual academic notability and very far from verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails both GNG and SNG standards. Lourdes 06:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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 per WP:SNOW. See my comments below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Get Out (film)

Get Out (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)

Is minor film, not even released yet, article needs to be rewritten to not sound like promo, but because it isn't released it can't be fixed so AfD L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The article has multiple reliable sources, including a review from The Hollywood Reporter. While it hasn't had a widespread release yet, it has already had its premiere at Sundance. And I really do not understand the accusation that it is somehow written to sound like a promo. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Not to get up in your face, but the way the plot is worded lead him to a truth that he never could have imagined. sounds like it is copied out of a brochure. I came across this article when someone tried to turn the period into a … .L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think that arguing that the article needs to be rewritten due to a single, poorly worded sentence is a tad bit extreme. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This deletion notice just seems like an overreaction. I don't really see what's wrong with using a "promo" blurb, so long as it serves as a decent summary of the movie and doesn't explicitly market itself by comparing itself to other unrelated films. For the record, the blurb seems to be taken from this trailer description. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm going to close this as a speedy keep since this very obviously passes NFILM for several reasons and the reasons for deletion are all routine maintenance. Here are the reasons why this passes:

1. The film had its world premiere at Sundance via a secret screening, where it received quite a few reviews (16), enough for a rating at Rotten Tomatoes. These are more than enough reviews to pass NFILM, especially as there are reviews by AV Club, Variety, RogerEbert.com, The Hollywood Reporter, and Consequence of Sound, all of which are considered to be RS.
2. Even prior to this screening the film still received a decent amount of coverage, enough to where it could be argued that it passed NFF. The reason for this is likely a mixture of Peele's overall popularity but also because he had recently released Keanu with his comedy partner and the film was fairly well received. A lot of news outlets found it an interesting jump in genre. While it didn't receive the amount of coverage like DC and Marvel films do prior to release, it was still quite a bit of coverage. I'd also kind of argue against it being a minor film, as it's getting a wide theatrical release later this month and you can see trailers for this film on television. While again, it's not as big of a release as the huge superhero blockbusters, it's far from being one of those movies that would play in less than 100 theaters and then go straight to video.
3. Finally, what you're arguing here is something that can be fixable and doesn't really have anything to do with notability. The plot section can be rewritten in order to remove the overly promotional tones and I've done just that. It actually needed to be re-written anyway, since it was taken from the promotional material for the film, which makes it a copyright violation. Basically, AfD is not meant to be cleanup, especially when it's on a topic that has more than enough sourcing to pass NFILM.

I'm going to close this out since there's not a snowball's chance that this will close as a delete when we have ample pre and post premiere coverage for the movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

OptiBiotix Health

OptiBiotix Health (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 and WP:PROMO. Article doesn't prove any notability outside the product/research they create and the fact that they showed some posters at an expo one time. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree it seems to fail our notability guidlines, and having ® in text does suggest that this was written with promotional intent in mind. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's just a little short of G11. Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Promotional. I could find no mention of this company in reliable independent sources so fails WP:ORGSIG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Robert Lewandowski

List of international goals scored by Robert Lewandowski (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)

Current consensus at WP:FOOTY is that stand-alone lists of international goals are only appropriate for footballers who are or were at some time the top scorer for their nation. Lewandowski is presently the third-highest scorer for Poland, thus this list is not yet notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - consensus is that separate list articles are needed only for players who at one time or another have been their country's all time leading scorer. Lewandowski has not yet reached that level. Fenix down (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per this and this afd discussions. Lewandowski is known for scoring international goals and it is better to keep it as a separate article rather than merge or delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - this keep vote misunderstands the deletion rationale. Both examples provided are of players who are their nation's all time leading scorer. There are currently two other Polish players who have scored more goals than Lewandowski and no indication, as required by WP:LISTN, that his goal scoring at international level as a subject overall rather than a synthesis of comments from individual match reports. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope I understand the deletion rational just fine. Yet we have List of international goals scored by Neymar and List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi, neither of which are their countries respective top scorers. This articles were kept because it was deemed that the individuals were notable high scoring footballer who's statistics are also notable. Lewandowski I believe also falls into this category. The information is relevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you do. Looking at the histories, for those two articles, I can't see any indication that they have ever been discussed, so not sure how you draw consensus from those. For Rooney, the AfD is clear that it was kept as he was so close to being the all time top scorer it was more effort to delete and restore than to keep and for Ibrahimovic, the article is also clear that he was the all time swedish top scorer at the time of nomination, so he is not relevant to this discussion. On the contrary, there is clear consensus in old AfDs that unless you are the all time top scorer, no matter what your reputation, there is no need for a standalone list. I draw your attention, and that of the next admin to look at closing to:

1. Gonzalo Higuain
2. Sergio Aguero, Rui Costa, Helder Postiga, Nuno Gomes
3. Javier Hernandez
4. Luis Figo
5. Clint Dempsey
6. João Vieira Pinto
7. Islam Slimani

Bar Rooney for the reasons outlined above, I cannot find a single instance in the last 13 months of an AfD where the player was not at one point their nation's all time leading top scorer being closed as keep. I am not seeing you provide any evidence of GNG for this list which would result in a different conclusion being drawn. The fact that there are articles out there that have not come to AfD does not mean they are notable. Fenix down (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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 04:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Aura D'Angelo

Aura D'Angelo (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)

Speedy deletion and proposed deletion tags placed on this page by different users have both been removed by the page's creator. The page has since improved but it is questionable as to whether it passes WP:NM. DrStrauss talk 19:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - popular Italian singer of the 1960s, reasonably well documented in the Italian press and Italian books. For the record, contrary to the rationale for the AFD above, the first CSD A7 tag which should never have been placed by DrStrauss was in fact contested by @USA-Fan: and removed by RickinBaltimore who is not the article's creator. I then removed RickinBaltimore's different BLP PROD tag (which is different from a CSD A7 tag Dr Strauss) since the article has at least one reliable source. Now that misreading of the page history is dealt with, when coming across a sourced stub with "expand Italian" linking to a large sourced article on Italian wp, speedy deletion tags are not constructive editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: I never said RickinBaltimore was the creator... DrStrauss talk 21:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Silly me, my apologies! But the no-creator-contesting part doesn't undermine the AfD/PROD argument. DrStrauss talk 21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm having trouble doing a complete Italian search due to my lack of familiarity with older Italian publications, but I am very much leaning towards keep, based on the comment above about Italian book coverage. I looked up the award she received, but couldn't find any English sources to clarify whether it is notable or simply a minor local award. Yvarta (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Extensive discography, and singers from the pre-Google age, particularly those from non-English speaking countries, are often difficult to source. I think there is enough here to keep, though it would be helpful to further expand and improve the article. Montanabw^(talk) 00:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Weak keep. If we can have an article on every sports-person, however minor, who ever played in a professional match, we can surely have an article on every minor singer who ever performed at San Remo. I've added one source which covers her in some (not much) detail; she probably passes the GNG anyway, about 25 mentions in various books. The "Vulture d'Oro" is completely non-notable, not mentioned by anyone, anywhere, in relation to anyone else; it was perhaps a local award made by the small town of Melfi in the Vulture.

In ictu oculi, if you translated this page from it.wp, you must place an appropriate ((translated page)) template on the talk-page to provide attribution to the original authors. When translating pages about living people, please take care not to include any unreferenced personal detail (particularly if, as was apparently the case here, it is wrong). I don't know why you describe that page as "a large sourced article on Italian wp" when the only source is an external link to a Myspace page. I've removed the ((Expand Italian)) tag, as about the last thing this project needs is any more unreferenced content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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 04:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Franck van der Heijden

Franck van der Heijden (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 indication of notability. Claims to have worked with famous musicians, but that is not cited and even if it was, that alone does not establish notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as I concur, the information is unconvincing and the sources are both few and then only announcements, there's overall not the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge with existing Articles mentioned below. There seem to be sufficient sources that establish Franck van der Heijden's role in notable compositions (including the opening song of the UEFA Euro 2016 Final [4][5], the opening track of Michael Jackson's posthumous album Xscape [6][7]). There are also (less significant) mentions in collaborative works with David Garrett [8], and other sources that can assist in adding content to the page (should it be kept) but not to establish or support notability, including:

• Richard de Hoop (2012), Macht Musik!, GABAL Verlag GmbH, [9];
• Richard de Hoop (2014), Spitzenteams der Zukunft: So spielen Virtuosen zusammen, GABAL Verlag GmbH, [10];
• Interviews with Franck van der Heijden (only in line with WP:SPS, and definitely not to establish notability) [11][12];

Given what I've found so far (with a quick Google search), I think there is at least credible evidence that WP:COMPOSER has been met (e.g. WP:COMPOSER#1, "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition" (for his contribution to the UEFA 2016 Final song and the Xscape album)). But if the consensus is that notability is not met (I can imagine that some might consider WP:INHERITED standing in the way of notability), I would suggest merging relevant information to the pages UEFA Euro 2016 Final, Xscape (album), and David Garrett (musician), among others.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 14:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep My opinion –article of Franck van der Heijden should not be deleted! There are a lot of information about his works and collaboration with famous people in Internet.
• Explosive Deluxe album of David Garrett on music yandex
• Céline Dion. Encore un soir album reviews
• Interview of René Froger "Veel luisteren en opschrijven"

On youtube.com you can see him on the stage with David Garrett always together. For example:

• From the DVD Live In Concert & In Private (2009)
• Explosive live, Neue Philharmonie Frankfurt, Köln, Lanxess Arena, 1.12.2016
• Rock Anthems Tour of David Garrett & Band with Neue Philharmonie Frankfurt Orchestra
• Concert in Berlin Wuhlheide, 08.06.2010

He is known as a person with real achievements in the music world who contributed a lot to the art even without promotion. First of all that page needs his fans and the people who work behind the scene of show business. (User_talk:NataliaST) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete- As Nom stated, the article has a lot of claims but no sources to back them up. The references shown don't meet guidelines as 3 are primary (interviews) sources and 3 are about other topics that mention the subject. None of his compositions seem to meet the requirements of WP:COMPOSER. He did not write the official song of UEFA EURO 2016 or "Love Never Felt So Good" from the Michael Jackson album. He simply did an orchestral arrangement of another composer's work. A Google search turned up nothing to establish notability, mostly interviews, Youtube videos or music listings. If some independent, reliable sources with significant coverage were added to to the article he might pass GNG but as it stands now it fails that criteria as well. CBS527^Talk 03:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Evidence of this article's topic having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has not been presented during this discussion. Therefore, this article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ThoughtAudio

ThoughtAudio (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 is not a notable website under criteria of the General notability guideline or the specific Notability (web) guideline. I have been unable to locate any non-trivial coverage of the website or it's producer in independent reliable sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ningauble (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - TechReviewPro ranked ThoughtAudio 5th for accessing free audiobooks online and BestCompany rated them 14th among the best audiobooks companies of 2017. ThoughtAudio's rendition of The Assassination of Julius Caesar is a recommended resource by the curriculum management and standards-based system, NYLearns. This organization states: "ThoughtAudio.com is a producer and provider of free audio books featuring classic titles across a variety of genres. The audio books are professionally narrated works that you can listen to online or download to play offline." I have provided the above information with relevant links within the article, but will be happy to move that information to the discussion page, if necessary. ThoughtAudio is also a globally accessed site, including India and Russia as significant audiences. This is indicated by the Alexa link, also referenced within the article. ELApro (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  That was a valiant effort to find sources, but none of them provide significant coverage that goes beyond simply describing the website. According to WP:NOT § Internet guides:

  "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." [emphasis in source]

  There do not appear to be any independent reliable sources that provide information needed to cover the site in an encyclopedic manner. TechReviewPro is not a reliable source, it is a personal blog (see disclosure). The BestCompany™ online review site is somewhat informative in highlighting the paltry number of titles ThoughtAudio offers relative to others in the field, but this is not the sort of information that buttresses a claim of notability. NYLearns offers only a bare-bones description of what the site offers.

  ThoughtAudio does not have enough impact or historical significance to be mentioned in the Audiobook article, much less to be the subject of its own encyclopedic article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed the statement "ThoughtAudio.com is an internet company" from the article lede,[13] because the site domain is not registered to a company. It is registered to Anita Scott personally,[14] who is identified on-wiki as the wife of the Michael Scott Gallegos mentioned in the article.[15] Noting that donations on the site go directly to Michael Scott Studios rather than to an account in the name of ThoughtAudio,[16] I surmise that there is no such entity, and that the website is a personal hobby. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I have listed references and recommendations from the University of Cincinnati Libraries, Florida State Libraries, The Springer Learning Center & Library at Southwestern Christian University, TeachersFirst, under the not-for-profit, The Source for Learning, Inc., and from the curriculum management and standards-based system, NYLearns, in addition to praise for an individual rendition from LearnOutLoud. I have indicated and referenced that ThoughtAudio is serving a global audience. I have indicated and referenced that this is a resource for K-12 teachers, children and young adults, recommended by educational institutions. I must remind you that this is a small operation that is having a disproportionate impact on educational resources and that ThoughtAudio provides these audiobooks free of charge. I would plead that we work to improve the article rather than delete it. ELApro (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ningauble (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Setting aside that this is messily written, the article does seem to fail at WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB. The coverage is marginal, mostly in passing and/or not very independent/reliable. NYLearns review and recommendation doesn't seem like anything significant. Neither are any other minor endorsements; it is hard to say which are bought or pure PR. This is just a minor company doing minor stuff. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and other delete !votes above my own. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the article's nomination, the reflist has grown from 3 items to 11. Yes it is a small-ish website with only 94 audiobooks but I must disagree with other editors who say that it fails WP:NWEB. NWEB does not require a website to be "important" nor does it require a website to be famous. The only requirement is that the website is "noticed" and mentioned in other independent sources in a non-trivial manner. While it is debatable what qualifies as a "non-trivial" mention, it is undeniable that the website is mentioned in multiple independent sources (5,800 google results]... remember, the website is small, and has only 94 books so most of these are not itself). Also, this website is a not-for profit (its only products are offered for free); it's not the type of website that self-promotes or advertises. While the above !voters may argue that mentions such as "ThoughtAudio has classic works of literature and philosophy books available for download as free audio books" are trivial, considering what ThoughtAudio is, such a mention is actually appropriate... and I can't really imagine any other way this type of website is going to be mentioned... it's just not the type of thing that is going to win a prestigious award because no such awards exist. Looking at the contribution history of the editor who created this article, it is clear that he is independent of the website and that this article is not an advertisement. —CodeHydro 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  Considering that it is not worthless and is free, it has naturally attracted a number of links and mentions, but Google's initial estimate of the number of hits can be off by an order of magnitude. Concerning trivial mentions, I think "considering what ThoughtAudio is ... I can't really imagine any other way this type of website is going to be mentioned" is about right. For myself, I can't really imagine an article, pruned of puffery and fluff, that has any more substance than a directory entry. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note to closer:  There was a significant amount of Canvassing for this discussion on February 6. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Deleted as part of mass deletion. [17] (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 02:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

9361

9361 (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 is not necessary, astronomical events can be placed on 100th century article CatcherStorm ^talk 18:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - This and all similar distant future one-off astronomical articles. Combine by centuries or millennia or something... Carrite (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Surely these and the other 9000s articles serve no useful purpose. The only thing they mention relate to astronomical events which could easily be placed elsewhere and any other possible content would surely fail WP:TOOSOON and WP:BALL given they are more than 7000 years in the future. Dunarc (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Ugh. Yes, it has some 'Astronomical Events' but so does any other year; we could probably add a million or more articles through some auto-bot generation. Unlikely to be every useful, by the time we get to near that year, I am sure we will progress beyond encyclopedic wiki style of knowledge creation :) Anyway, fails WP:N. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOTFUTURE, all the others as well. J947 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Deleted as part of mass deletion. [18] (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 02:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

9847

9847 (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 is not necessary, astronomical events can be placed on 100th century article CatcherStorm ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note At CatcherStorm's request, this AFD now covers three other articles as well:

9168 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

9106 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

9682 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• These were part of a larger group that CatcherStorm asked to be merged, and while several had gotten votes (making a merge confusing), these three hadn't yet. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOTFUTURE, all the others as well. J947 00:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Deleted as part of mass deletion. [19] (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 02:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

9966

9966 (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 is not necessary, astronomical events can be placed on 100th century article CatcherStorm ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I...umm...exactly how many of these articles are there? Follow up question: are any of them conceivably more useless, or are they all about the same in that regard? TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOTFUTURE, all the others as well. J947 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. And by the way, there is no speedy deletion criterion for non-notable films, although notability for this one is questionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Premara nisha niara niara

Premara nisha niara niara (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 movie- all references are the listings on movie databases. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - NN - Promotional - user (Studio) blocked for spam name. Q: why AFd when CSD would do? -- Alexf^(talk) 18:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Deleted as part of mass deletion. [20] (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 02:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

9622

9622 (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 below CatcherStorm ^talk 18:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see the below reasoning for deletion. If these events can be predicted with reliability seven thousand years in advance, and astronomical events can, keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Astronomical events in the far future should be placed on 100th century. I personally don't think it's necessary to make an entire article for one astronomical event. The same has been done on 99th century, 98th century, and so forth. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete all of them - I'm with catcher on this one. If a date is so far off that it literally fails GNG because there is basically nil that is written about it, then there should not be an article on it. Dates don't get a special exception from the policies we apply to all other articles.

I would also be interested to know if this has happened before, because it is odd to say the least for a new user to spring up and immediately create 20 new articles complete with inboxes and categories. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a solar eclipse and passage of Mercury 7000 years away doesn't require an article nor this WP:COATRACK stub on the year in which it is to take place. The very definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Now, leaving aside the transit of mercury, the furthest ahead we have an article for an eclipse is Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186. If ppl really feel that a leap ahead to the year 9622 is notable, I'd be open to reeaxmining my !vote.
• Delete as per WP:NOTFUTURE, all the others as well. J947 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Except that doesn't apply because this event is certain to take place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Reinhard Schendlinger

Reinhard Schendlinger (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)

Schendlinger never played or trained professional, just in the Regionalliga XaviYuahanda (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Managed for a club in the Austrian Football First League. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't? --XaviYuahanda (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Page is far from ready to be released, a user-box is not content. But that is a very nicely filled out user box. @Markh991: put this page in your sandbox and spend more time finding actual citations to prove this person is noteworthy enough to have a WP page, then try again.Sgerbic (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete As my respected fellow editors mention above, fails GNG and NFOOTY. Lourdes 06:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Creator's articles were mass deleted by Materialscientist. [[21]] (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

3183

3183 (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)

Same reason as the 9987 deletion below. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete but really, this is one of the few cases a mass nomination would be totally justified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete I also support mass deletion and blocking of the year spammer. Fbergo (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He has been reported to WP:ANI. Fbergo (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NOTFUTURE, all the others as well. J947 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Creator's articles were mass deleted by Materialscientist. [22] (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 02:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

9987

9987 (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)

If "9986" and "9984" and so on and so forth do not exist, it is not necessary to create a whole article for it. This year is in the far, far future. No references, either. Astronomical events can be placed on the article for 10th millennium, 9th millennium, and so forth. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTFUTURE, along with 9987, 3183, 9622, 9966, 9847, 9106, 9168, 9682 and 9361 from the same editor, User:22nd Century and Beyond. These should have been bundled up as a single AfD, really. --McGeddon (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOTFUTURE, all the others as well. J947 00:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete all of these. Jbh^Talk 00:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The subject of the article is a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Telangana, a state of India, as supported by citations in the article and noted in this AfD. This qualifies the subject as passing WP:POLITICIAN. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Challa Vamshichand Reddy

Challa Vamshichand Reddy (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 claim of significance, wholly dependent on one reference CatcherStorm ^talk 18:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CatcherStorm! As soon as I created the page, I posted a comment on the Talk page that I would be developing the page in next 3-4 days. The subject is of significance as he is a renowned politician of Telangana, India. - Edwige9 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is credible and looks pretty okay for being on Wikipedia. As per wiki policy, a page of famous political figure can be created. The Afd tag should be removed from the page Rudra9 (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep members of legislative assemblies, the state level legislative bodies of states in India, clearly meet the notability criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

List of sinkholes in Ottawa

List of sinkholes in Ottawa (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 could see this being a reasonable category, but it isn't much use as a list. In fact it is a category, Category:Sinkholes of Canada, which currently only contains the same items listed here and this list itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Sinkholes are an extremely common phenomenon — many, many cities of any significant size have at least one every two or three years. Ottawa is not unique; I can recall several of these in Toronto, Sudbury, Timmins and Wawa, to name just examples I'm aware of. But it's quite rare for them to actually qualify for standalone articles as independent topics in their own right, absent some evidence that they actually satisfy the ten-year test for enduring significance. But nothing listed here does, as witness the fact that three of them exist only as redirects to the road or other piece of infrastructure that they happened to occur on, and the last exists only as a redirect right back to this very list. We maintain lists of notable incidents, not lists of non-notable redirects. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Why not? The very enthusiastic nomination does all but tell me why it should be deleted but rather tells me why the category has lesser importance than other categories. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 20:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Furthermore, I can see reasons for it to be improved with more content however, I do not believe that would justify it being deleted from Wikipedia. I can just imagine using this list myself should I ever wish to know of Sink-hole events in Ottawa. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 20:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

And why would "sink-hole events in Ottawa" even be a thing you needed to know about, to a degree different from "sink-hole events in Toronto" and "sink-hole events in Sudbury" and "sink-hole events in Timmins"? We don't and won't ever have lists of the latter, so what exactly makes Ottawa's "sink-hole events" more notable than the others? Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: "And why would "sink-hole events in Ottawa" even be a thing you needed to know about" If I was studying and needed to know about sinkholes in that area then this cat would be useful. "We don't and won't ever have lists of the latter" well I am not voting on those lists at the moment. Each of those would need to be judged on the merit of its nomination. In this case, I believe that having the category here does not effect anything and could only ever be used by those actively seeking specific information and could only ever produce constructive results for those people. I will happily move towards expansion of the list. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 20:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with the nominator and Bearcat, let's not get sidetracked into a WP:NOTINTERESTING argument. That's not the issue here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No enduring significance for sinkhole articles, much less a list of them. Dog bites, drug busts, neighbors complaining of loud noise, and other Daily Blotter newspaper events are not automatically notable for a WP article. First Light (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This list was pure deception with its use of multiple "Main article" templates [23]. None of the sinkholes in the list has its own article. Each "Main article" link is to a miniscule section in the various WP articles about streets or areas in Ottawa. I have copied the text from those articles to the list and removed the "Main article" nonsense. I've also added some more references and expanded the lede to contextualise the list. It's conceivable that this list could be expanded into something of encyclopedic value, but I have no strong feelings one way or the other about keeping it. Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as First Light said, no enduring significance. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was snow keep. Closing a few hours early as it's obvious that consensus is not going to change. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Calutron Girls

The Calutron Girls (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 claim of significance. The article is dependent on one reference. Fails GNG CatcherStorm ^talk 18:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. While the article reads like a conspiracy theory, and is sourced to some unreliable website, I don't think it reaches the need for WP:TNT. And the topic does seem notable: a quick look at the Google Books shows there are, indeed, sources. There's less at GSchoolar, but still I feel there's enough, and I am afraid this is a failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added File:Y12 Calutron Operators.jpg, a quote "famous" photo by Ed Westcott, that we already had on Commons and already used in Manhattan Project from where I have linked to The Calutron Girls. I have further added seven cite books. Subject is notable and meets GNG. Should likely be moved to Calutron Girls per WP:NCTHE. There's really no need to tag articles like this for deletion 3 minutes after they are created. If an IP or non-autoconfirmed user had requested Calutron Girls at WP:AFC/R I would have had no hesitation with making a change to Manhattan Project similar to this (without the wikilink, of course), and create the redirect as a categorized ((R to related topic)). Should it be merged into Manhattan Project? Perhaps, but that's a question about merging, not deleting. — Sam Sailor 00:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Important history. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC).
• Keep: There are a few sources through Google Scholar that discuss this as well as a few books that I found through Google Books. I agree that this appears to be an example of a failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator (it happens to the best of us). Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Sam Sailor - I removed on sight the conspiracy theories. I don't see that article growing a lot, but Manhattan project is already fairly large and there is no other natural merge target. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I've already moved the article. Lourdes 08:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Werner Gössinger

Werner Gössinger (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)

Gössinger never played or trained professional, just in the Regionalliga XaviYuahanda (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Peter Seher

Peter Seher (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)

Seher never trained or played professional, just in the Regionalliga XaviYuahanda (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - no achievement or accomplishments signifying notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Pretty much a close paraphrase copyvio. Courcelles (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Neil Cox (wildlife artist)

Neil Cox (wildlife artist) (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, has not had any sources despite being tagged as needing sources for 2 years. —METS501 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete cannot find enough sources to show notability. Also, this article is a word-for-word copy of his website's "about" page, so probably a copyvio. Jolly Ω Janner 08:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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 Sonic Adventure 2. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure 2 The Trial

Sonic Adventure 2 The Trial (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 WP:notable. Just a demo version of a game. No independent notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sonic Adventure 2. While this demo existed, there is nothing to indicate that it was independently notable from the finished game. The article has no reliable sources, and is poorly written, thus there is nothing worth merging to the main article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect Agree with 64.183.45.226. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect - All this is, is a small demo for Sonic Adventure 2, containing a single level that largely unaltered from the final game. All the differences are trivial (Sonic has slightly different shoes!) and not worth mentioning. There's no way it needs its own article. The main article doesn't even mention it, and its a WP:GA. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - The article makes no claim to independent notability, and as someone who was familiar with this demo when it came out, I can't think of any reason why it would ever be mentioned outside the context of Sonic Adventure 2. No sense in making it a redirect, since it's not a likely search term; anyone looking for info on this demo would naturally look up the Sonic Adventure 2 article first.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not that it matters all that much, but it could be seen as a plausible search term - its a real name and doesn't have any implausible disambiguation (its not Sonic Adventure 2 (2001 video game demo disc) or something like that.) And while its not currently in the article, it could be, as a sentence in the development/release/promotion type section. There's database entries that could source its existence, and surely it received some coverage back in the day, when this game was a big upcoming release. Not nearly enough to meet the GNG, but to warrant a sentence in the main article and a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, though, anyone looking for info on the demo is going to head straight for Sonic Adventure 2; they're not going to assume the existence of a separate article for the demo. And even if they do try searching for the demo, long before they type in the whole title it will be clear from the drop-down box that their only option is to go to Sonic Adventure 2.

If we're talking about a well-experienced Wikipedian - absolutely. But we're not - that's not the main reading population. Most average people have no conception of things like the "GNG" or what requirements there are for a subject to have its own article. Look no farther than the number of articles by first time editors at AFD or CSD for proof on that. Not to mention, multiple fan wikias have stand-alone articles for the demo. You're just giving far too much credit to the average person typing words into that search bar... Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to know the GNG to intuit that Wikipedia is not going to have articles on every possible subject all the way down to the fingernail on your neighbor's pinkie. I remember using Wikipedia before I started editing it; I was often surprised by the things WP has articles on, never by anything WP doesn't have an article on.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's great, but I don't think you represent the average causal reader. You might be unable to tell anymore, because I've been cleaning up their messes on Wikipedia for years, but the Sonic fanbase tends to think everything in the Sonic franchise needs mention and its own article. They're always trying trying to create articles that their respective wikia has, just because Wikipedia doesn't have one yet. Why doesn't Silver the Hedgehog have its own article? Or Sonic Eraser? Even the most obscure junk like Wechinia has at least 3 wikia articles on it, so they think Wikipedia needs that too. Its never ending. And considering this standalone wikia article and this standalone wikia article exist, and someone created the article on Wikipedia now, I can't possibly see how you could reason otherwise here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a big difference between someone creating an article and someone expecting an article to already exist. But if you think redirects are the best way to stave off the creation of wikia-type Sonic articles on Wikipedia, then I cede the argument to you, because I can't claim to have spent heaps of time editing the Sonic articles on WP. (Besides, as it is I've probably spent too much of our time here debating what is really a fairly minor point.)--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sonic Adventure 2. Not independently notable. Possible search term. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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 Nomination Withdrawn -- per nominator's keep statement at bottom. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Munke Mølle

Munke Mølle (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 article seems to only exist to promote the company. The article is also wholly dependent on one source which is the company's website. I believe this fails the GNG for companies. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. While WP:VERYOLD is not an argument for keeping, sources are, and this company, established in 1135; 889 years ago (1135), can be sourced well passed the requirements of WP:GNG as due diligence very quickly should have revealed. I do not think the editor, FrantisekKorbel, who has been editing on Czech Wikipedia since 2008 intended this article to be promotional, but that is a summountable problem, and I have copy-edited slightly and sourced the article to some extent. The argument that The article is also wholly dependent on one source which is the company's website. is wrong in two ways: (a) at the time of tagging the article contained two sources, and (b) none of them were to the company website. The external link was to the parent company web site, and said nothing about Munke Mølle, and has been removed, and the other source was an inline bare URL to a site listing purveyors to the Court of Denmark. And in any case, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Should nom wish to withdraw they may follow the instructions given at WP:WDAFD. — Sam Sailor 21:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - clearly notable company. The article could definitely need improvements. but that is something that can be fixed. BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep -- "the oldest company in..." is sufficient claim to notability, and I'm seeing some coverage in GBooks: link. Additional sources are very likely to exist in Danish. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Sam Sailor contacted me about these articles on my talk page. When I first saw them, they were not in the state which they were, and if they were when I saw them, I would not have tagged these articles. It was an hasty error on my part. These articles should be kept. CatcherStorm ^talk 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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 Deletion A7' . Alexf^(talk) 18:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Muzeu skenderbeu kruje

Muzeu skenderbeu kruje (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 references for GNG, wholly written in foreign language CatcherStorm ^talk 17:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete: fails GNG. Alan Hardest (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Liberia National Movie Awards

Liberia National Movie Awards (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 references to support GNG CatcherStorm ^talk 17:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per nom could have been an A7. Domdeparis (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. It has no sources and doesn't meet GNG or even indicate its notability. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 00:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Article has no references. Does not meet WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete While the use of the word "Liberian National" gives an impression that these are some government awards, the reality seems otherwise. This seems to be some private event loosely using the country's name. Non notable event. As mentioned, could have been a speedy too but for the fact that the words used for the event give an allusion to a credible claim. Lourdes 08:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Nowhere near notable and completely unreferenced. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - as it happens, I saw and actioned a request to delete as a CSD A7 before noticing that this request was opened. Appreciate normally AFD takes priority over CSD but this is a really obvious case, so no point my reverting myself. If anyone disagrees drop me a line and we can start again with the AfD The Land (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ashutosh Maheshwari

Ashutosh Maheshwari (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 engineer biography. No references, likely autobiography CatcherStorm ^talk 17:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - In its present state, has no references, and is non-notable. Google search appears to find someone else and so is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Isaac Sunday Sieh

Isaac Sunday Sieh (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 biography, no references that support GNG CatcherStorm ^talk 17:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A7 and G11. It was already twice speedy deleted under A7. Only source offered is the person's Facebook account. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G5. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Vaga - The Official (TV Series)

Vaga - The Official (TV Series) (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 has no references to suggest that this TV series is notable per GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect Article is a duplicate of Vaga - The Official. I recommend a redirect for now. Eventually the original will be deleted per the PROD on that page, and then this redirect can be deleted as well. SPI has been opened for the creators. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Selam Gayatri Venkatesan

Selam Gayatri Venkatesan (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 has no references to suggest that the subject of the article is notable. All external links are to YouTube. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - no good references, does not meet notability standards. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Engage orbital nuclear device - WP:PROMO, WP:NOTRESUME, basically completely unsourced BLP, not much of anything to improve the article with that I'm finding, and no corresponding foreign language article to judge from, other than to suggest a conspicuous absence. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Nice photos, I really like photos on a page. But this isn't slightly ready yet. @Looooojlgfb: I see that you have made a good effort, but please start smaller, start by improving existing pages and work your way up. Writing a brand new page is a lot of work, and you need to understand the rules of notability before you start to write. Start there and then build around the Evidence you have. Welcome to Wikipedia, keep learning.Sgerbic (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - a list of self-promotional Youtube links with no Independent reliable sources whatsoever. The "About her Guru" section is a copy-paste from our T. R. Subramaniam article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG/BASIC/SNG. Lourdes 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G4, G5) by Nthep

DOCTOR SREEHARI

DOCTOR SREEHARI (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)

Reason Priyankakadoo (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Keep No reason given. Procedural close? Delete - Sock puppet shenanigans. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability. Although I agree with Exemplo347 that this nomination was performed incorrectly, now that it exists, it gives us a chance to examine this article. Dr. Sreehari is noted solely for having "anesthetized the most people simultaneously" (through hypnosis, rather then medicinally, as it turns out). This is a rather bizarre achievement, with little bearing on any real accomplishments. After all, what benefit is it to simultaneously anesthetize many people, other than as a parlor trick? Many of the links in the article are about the use of anesthetic hypnosis, but not about Sreehari himself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • See also:
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypnotist srihari
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr sreehari hypnotist
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr sreeharii
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y. Srihari

    This is apparently a persistent effort!

• Speedy Keep I proposed articles for deletion .Initially the article have only limited sources..Now i am satisfied with the other sources.He was created world record so we can consider the matter.He performed this record for inform the doctors of world about the importance of the hypno anesthesia.Anesthetics have life threatening complication,so it is very best alternative for who were suffer with this complication.

(Priyankakadoo (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC))

• Keep a notable and interesting .This person quite familiar.Induced anesthesia in 250 persons at a time is great thing,it is a scientific based performance.The primary source,"Indias book of world records" confirmed this is world record.

(Y diptanshu sameeksh (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The article and this AfD were created by a sockpuppet of community banned prolific sockmaster User:Nsmutte, so good-faith editors should not waste your time on this, per WP:BANREVERT and WP:DNFTT. --bonadea contributions talk 20:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wisdom Collins

Wisdom Collins (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 has no reliable references that suggest the subject is notable CatcherStorm ^talk 17:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This looks like it's probably a hoax page overall, especially as the image used here claims that it's him at Cannes in 2013, yet the image itself is from a mall in Nigeria from 2016. It looks like there were other attempts to add this persona to Wikipedia at Young-weezy, which was deleted as A7. I'm going to A7 this and give the person creating this article a NOTHERE block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Depressão Total

Depressão Total (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 band, no references, and not in english CatcherStorm ^talk 17:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete looks to be a social media spamming result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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. WP:SNOW -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

John G. Edelman

John G. Edelman (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)

Though the person is the CEO of a company that has their own Wikipedia article, the references listed in this article do not suggest that the subject meets GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Promo article by an extremely obvious paid editor who hasn't declared their Conflict of Interest. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I wish I was paid for this article... Simply filled in basic information about the CEO of a company. I am trying to begin articles for large companies in the design industry, I am new to it and would appreciate help rather than immediate dismissal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnEditorNameA (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You're creating articles for one specific company and its employees. That's not how a new editor typically behaves, and your actions in disrupting the deletion process of your other articles do not indicate that you're here to improve Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete It also doesn't help your case that the pictures of the employees are pictures you claim to own and have personally released the copyright of, which most "new and unconnected editors" wouldn't say. (here and here) GabetheEditor ^(talk_cont) 23:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like something that belongs on Linked-in. Subject is CEO of a business unit of a larger corporation. Not sufficient for WP:NBIO. MB 02:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to meet GNG or NBIO. Article creator now at COIN. Meters (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NBIO and only shows ]]WP:ROUTINE]] coverage. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: A two-sentence vanity article written for a CEO does not belong on Wikipedia ever. - Brianhe (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: no indication of notability by our standards, regardless of the possible COI. I agree with GabetheEditor that the upload of an image taken on 13 June 2011 looks at first like evidence of a direct and long-established connection; but I think it's really just a common-or-garden copyright violation, so I've nominated that image for speedy deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. hopelessly contaminated by paid editing. If there is any actual notability , the only course would be to start over. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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 Weber School District#Junior High Schools. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

North ogden jr high

North ogden jr high (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 junior high school- no references, the article consists of one sentence. CatcherStorm ^talk 17:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Weber School District#Junior High Schools. Non-notable. Adam9007 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to Weber School District#Junior High Schools. Unremarkable junior high school- no references, the article consists of one sentence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect Nothing found to suggest this should be a separate article. Gab4gab (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing really here to redirect. Gooooo School Spirit! But not quite yet.Sgerbic (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)North Ogden Junior High is a very fun school. Every one is nice and friendly.

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Vinod Kumar Grover

Vinod Kumar Grover (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:BIO. previously deprodded . No inherent notability in position. Very limited coverage and that coverage is him speaking as a government official and not him as a subject. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong keep He has been an Indian Ambassadors to Turkey [24] and a special envoy from India [25] he has retired as one of the highest ranking officers in the Indian foreign ministry.FITINDIA (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

hardly a strong keep. Neither of those 2 positions confer inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• keep. Have expanded the stub. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Armaan Story of a Storyteller

Armaan Story of a Storyteller (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:NMOVIE Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources-- which is expected for a film that hasn't been released yet, and is made by first-time filmmakers and actors. Currently it exists only for WP:PROMOTIONAL purposes. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROMOTION and failing WP:NMOVIE Coderzombie (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 - copyvio of www.onenov.in/listings/raj_kumar_indian_television_actor Yunshui ^雲_水 15:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Raj Kumar Manoharan

Raj Kumar Manoharan (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 references to support notability CatcherStorm ^talk 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No-notable actor fails WP:ACTOR. The article is a good candidate for speedy.FITINDIA (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fifty Foot Cliff

Fifty Foot Cliff (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 don't believe this article meets the notability guidelines for geographical features. The references don't suggest the cliff is notable outside of Mansfield, Connecticut. It's just a cliff. CatcherStorm ^talk 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom unless unless material could be found to argue for a merge to Fifty Foot Cliff Preserve. Yvarta (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep/Move to Fifty Foot Cliff Preserve. There are sources such as [26], [27], [28], plus several primary sources (Town of Mansfield) and lots of hits on hiking blogs.MB 03:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep already with so many references it is notable. It does not matter who knew about it before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Existence of sources demonstrate the notability of this geographical feature. --Oakshade (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Scarface (2017 film)

Scarface (2017 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)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There has been talk previously of a sequel (see the subsection in the article about the 1983 film) but nothing ever came of it. This article has one reference which offers nothing solid to back the claim that the film is being made. For now, the subsection in the 1983 article is the proper place for speculation about a remake, until something more solid can be found to back the claim. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete It's been announced, but it certainly isn't slotted for 2017; wait until we know it's a go. Nate • (chatter) 16:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Courcelles (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nazim Ali

Nazim Ali (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)

Reads like a CV Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails BASIC GNG.FITINDIA (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Article reads like a CV. Does not meet WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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 per A10 RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Address of President Manuel L. Quezon on Policies and Achievements of the Government and Regeneration of the Filipino

Address of President Manuel L. Quezon on Policies and Achievements of the Government and Regeneration of the Filipino (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 appears to be an essay that a student put on article mainspace. It should be moved to the user's sandbox if he wants to keep it. CatcherStorm ^talk 14:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under A10 and tagged as such. If the CSD tag is declined, then delete per WP:NOR (it's an essay and Wikipedia is not the place to post essays). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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 close. There is nothing to be deleted. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration/sandbox/Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration

Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration/sandbox/Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration (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)

Mistake Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration/sandbox/Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Morteza Azari

Morteza Azari (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 is not notable enough. It does not pass WP:GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete This is a biography of a living person that has no references. I will propose a deletion instead. CatcherStorm ^talk 14:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. I should have thought that members of the Assembly of Experts pass WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Is he in the assembly of experts? Masshad would be covered in Iranian Assembly of Experts election, 2016#Razavi Khorasan (6), and he isn't there. I can't find anything online either. But it says he is a representative of the city at the assembly, perhaps that means he is an observer? Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smmurphy and Necrothesp: I checked the results of the last election. He's not a member of Assembly of Experts. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: unsourced WP:BLP. Claims of significance seem to have been copied from Ahmad Alamolhoda. In fact, the article's first revision supports my hypothesis even more. Speaking of that revision, the list of irrelevant external links is almost identical to the one at revision 749456750 of Imam Hassan (mosque). I suspect sockpuppetry and have thus started a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qoba Mosque, which may lead to WP:G5 speedy deletion of both pages. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

HyperGaruda: I agree with this. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. I'll grant that based on the most recent election article he doesn't appear to be a current member of the Assembly of Experts, but that doesn't negate the possibility that he was a member of a prior session of that body. That said, in order to actually keep this per WP:NPOL we require not just an assertion that he was in the Assembly, but a reliable source which properly confirms that — especially given the evidence that this started as a copy-paste of another article about a different person, thus suggesting the possibility that it's an outright WP:HOAX. And, for that matter, even if a person does have a valid claim of notability, BLPs still have to contain sources to actually be kept. So I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually provide proper sourcing to confirm that he has served in the Assembly, but it has to be deleted if that can't be properly verified. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat AFAIK, he had never been a part of the Assembly. A man with such a young age can rarely be elected for such a critical position where the applicants need to have enough experience. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Michael Ingemi

New Michael Ingemi (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 claim of significance. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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.