< 6 September	8 September >

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. Minimal debate, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southamerican University[edit]

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

Article about a "virtual" (long-distance learning) university in Colombia, created in 2010 by a WP:SPA who hasn't edited since, and it's never been updated. It's certainly not a hoax, as evidenced by this article from the same year [1], but there doesn't seem to be anything on the internet regarding the university after this date, which suggests that Mr Altahona was ultimately unsuccessful in his attempts to persuade the Colombian authorities to grant his virtual university a licence, and that the university no longer exists. Mr Altahona now appears to be the head of a similar virtual education facility to teach students to high school diploma level [2]. Please note that the original web address for Southamerican University was www.southamericanuniversity.org – I have been unable to discover if this university was in any way affiliated with the similar long-distance learning facility South America University based in the US, which originally had the almost identical web address www.southamericanuniversity.com and is now located at www.sau-edu-us. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cannot close as WP:NOQUORUM soft delete due to previous contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy, J947: can either of you explain why this AfD doesn't seem to appear in any of the three deletion sorting discussions listed above, which may explain why nobody has yet taken part in the debate? Richard3120 (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: You tell us, you were the one creating the AFD with those lists already in place. I just assumed you had added them. No worries, I'll add them again. Regards So Why 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. So Why 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sure looks like the business never got off the ground, so absent some significant coverage it is just nothing to be notable. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As framed here, the notability of the topic seems to boil down to whether Graeme Bartlett's sources are sufficient germane to establish notability for the building. Two people say yes (Graeme and Doncram), two people say no (TheLongTone and Sionk) and I don't see a killer argument in favour of one side. Other arguments do not seem to be accompanied by much evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weir House (Victoria University of Wellington)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot see how this building is notable enough to merit more than a brief article in the university's page. Redirect undone by page creator. TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see that an aticle on the subject was deleted as a result of a discussion. Can't see how anyting might have changed. Speedy D?TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep That debate was more than ten years ago though. Now there are several references available:[3][4](a mention)[5][6][7][8][9][10] so I think an independent article could be written from suitable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep" Weir House is a significant residential college at Victoria University of Wellington. Originally founded along the lines of an Oxford college, it is a significant landmark in Wellington and several books have been written on its history. To delete Weir House, without deleting articles such as Knox College, Otago or Selwyn College, Otago would be to apply two different policies on notability, and to leave Wikipedia without a significant institution within New Zealand's university history. Darren (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that it was possible to come up with a bunch of references; however all of them seem to be fundamentally about the university. As for the second person believing this should be kept, the argument is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, much as TheLongTone has said, the two sources in the article are not independent of the University, while the sources discovered by Graeme seem to be mentions in articles about something else. Even though it's bricks and mortar and, probably for NZ, been around for a fair time there's no evidence of a heritage listing or architectural importance. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are substantial historical facts about this residence already included in the article, and its photos show it is substantial architecturally. See Category:University and college residential buildings for many articles about substantial dormitories and other collegiate residences that have less substance. (And please spare me any complaint about "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" not being valid. We need a counter-essay to that essay, because as Wikipedia has matured in many areas, "other stuff like this exists" is indeed an increasingly valid argument.) It is not surprising and it is perfectly fine by me if there exist major sources about the university which provide coverage about this, and for those sources to be associated with the university, of course they are. A book by an alumnus would be fine in my view. And it is not as if this is a promotional article supporting some commercial venture. --do ncr am 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have turned every basis of Wikipedia on it's head. Are you saying Wikipedia should have articles about every building because they are 'substantial'? And if you know of an independently published book by an alumnus maybe you could share it. Sionk (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history book is called: Weir Tales: 75 Years of History. Here is a press release by the university about it http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0808/S00285/weir-house-celebrates-75th-anniversary.htm Darren (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh puh-lease. Self -published nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please include sources mentioned within this discussion in the article in order to address potential future notability concerns. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Research & Exchanges Board[edit]

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

The article is in this poor state siince 2008 and tagged for notability since 2016. Time to say guud-bye. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why the organization is notable The notice at the top of the article asks for help in establishing the organization’s notability, which seems to be the main concern. Here is some information about IREX’s current and historical significance, with links to sources.

IREX was established in 1968 by the American Council of Learned Societies, the Social Science Research Council, the Ford Foundation, and the US Department of State. IREX conducted scholarly exchanges between the US and the Soviet Union to bridge geopolitical divides, until the fall of the Iron Curtain.

For more information about IREX’s role during this period, see:

Yale Richmond, Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: Raising the Iron Curtain (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2004)
David C. Engerman, Know Your Enemy: The Rise and Fall of America’s Soviet Experts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009)
Richard T. Arndt, The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century (Lincoln NE: Potomac Books, 2005)
Lucia Capodilupo, “IREX in Romania: Overview of Programs to Date and Plans for the Future,” Economy, Society, and Culture in Contemporary Romania (1984)
There is also a brief summary of IREX’s history at https://www.irex.org/our-story

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, IREX received an influx of funding to support democratic reforms and strengthen organizations. IREX administered programs to conduct educational exchanges, strengthen civil society in developing countries, increase internet access, and provide training and support to journalists and media organizations, among other activities. See:

M. Holt Ruffin, The Post-Soviet Handbook: A Guide to Grassroots Organizations and Internet Resources, 2nd ed. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999)
M. Holt Ruffin and Daniel Clarke Waugh, eds., Charles E. Ziegler, ed., Civil Society in Central Asia (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999)
Sarah E. Mendelson and John K. Glenn, eds., The Power and Limits of NGOs (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002)
Beate Josephi, ed., Journalism Education in Countries with Limited Media Freedom (Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers, 2010)
Jennifer Whitten-Woodring and Douglas A. Van Belle, eds., Historical Guide to World Media Freedom: A Country-by-Country Analysis (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2014)

Today, IREX conducts civil society, education, gender, governance, leadership, media, technology, and youth programs in more than 100 countries: https://www.devex.com/organizations/international-research-exchanges-board-irex-3236

For example, IREX implements the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders, a highly selective fellowship that builds the skills of 1,000 promising young leaders each year.

For a list of news articles about the program: https://yalisummit.irex.org/in-the-news/
For more information: http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2016/august/sen-coons-addresses-young-leaders/ & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsANB8TN9ps

IREX implements the World Smarts STEM Challenge, which was profiled in NPR and the Washington Times:

IREX’s education and leadership work has recently been featured in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Education Week, among other outlets:

Recently, the Center for European Policy Analysis and Legatum Institute published reports that describe IREX’s approach to helping citizens fight fake news. IREX's approach has also been discussed in the Washington Post:

IREX’s work in building, overseeing, and supporting the BOTA Foundation received praise from the Financial Times. The foundation distributed $115 million in grants, cash transfers, and scholarships in Kazakhstan: https://www.ft.com/content/10d8679c-228b-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d

If you still feel that the organization is not notable, could you please specify why?

There are some suggestions for improving the article on the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Research_%26_Exchanges_Board

--50.58.68.98 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this source (one of those listed above) provides reasonably in-depth coverage: link. 50 years of history and some indications of significance due to its role during the Cold War. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the IP and K.e.coffman show that there is plenty of academic sourcing out there for this to be notable. The book K.e.coffman presents is published by Oxford University Press, so it definitely meets our RS guidelines. Clear pass of WP:N here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asia/Dubai[edit]

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

Article about an item in a database. The entirety of the information in this article is contained in a table row in List of tz database time zones. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 16#Europe/Luxembourg (which indicates that these should not be redirected to either the list or the articles about the cities themselves).

Consensus for this page should apply to the 249 similar pages in Category:tz database. Jc86035 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple articles from this set came for up AfD some months ago and were deleted, IIRC; at the time it seemed odd that that was being done piecemeal, leaving several hundred similar stubs alone (much mis-applied reverse OTHERSTUFFEXISTS eventuated, I believe :/). These articles are merely page-size versions of the entries in List of tz database time zones, and it is difficult to imagine what additional information could be inserted here to make full article status worthwhile. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scandium F-12[edit]

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

Non-notable Turkish firearm, no reliable and independent sources could be found. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first thought at seeing these AFDs was "almost all firearms are notable", however this does not seem to be the case here. Seems to be a copy of [11] (copyvio?). No sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nearly an A7. Not notable enough, no notable variants, this isn't Gun-pedia. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spasov M1936[edit]

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

Non-notable Bulgarian firearm, no reliable sources could be found. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most firearms are notable. This one, however does not seem to have reliable sources - it is sourced from non-RS (blogs, etc.) in the article and a BEFORE doesn't reveal much more. Possible copy-vio / sourced from [12] (created there a week or so before Wikipedia).Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as others.L3X1 (distænt write) 01:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spasov submachine gun[edit]

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

Non-notable Bulgarian firearm, no reliable sources could be found. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first thought at seeing these AFDs was "almost all firearms are notable", however this does not seem to be the case here. Seems to be a copy of [13] (copyvio?). Sourcing is scant and doesn't seem reliable. Unable to find anything more reliable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all firearms are indeed notable, but not their variants. The Trigun is the only notable weapon out the pack. And for the most part the whole notion of "RS" has to go out the window regarding soem of these older WW2 and early cold war firearms, very little in English is going to survive to be on the internet. Gun blogs, forums, and posts by either weapon historians or owners quickly become the new bar for RS in these types of articles. The Trigun is notable enough that sooner or later someone else can do a better job of writing an article about, probably not me :) L3X1 (distænt write) 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spasov M1944 Trigun[edit]

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

Non-notable Bulgarian firearm, no reliable sources could be found. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first thought at seeing these AFDs was "almost all firearms are notable", however this does not seem to be the case here. Seems to be a copy of [14] (copyvio?). No substantive sources. If this by some means emerges from AFD, it should probably be merged with Spasov submachine gun (which also seems to be going for deletion on the same grounds). Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varshil Mehta[edit]

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

User appears to have just wrote an article about themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article needs a lot of work. For example, see "Furthermore, in his next study, he showed an association between maternal early pregnancy triglyceridaemia and the subsequent risk of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, and preterm deliveries." That is a published study. It is not a source reporting about the study. Also see "An article published by him recently, showed that lipid profile in pregnant women rises during the second and third trimesters.[10]" That is referring to this article. That is not a WP:SECONDARY source reporting about the article. That and other content can be deleted. After the vanity content is deleted not much will be left. An article for Journal of Medical Research and Innovation might be notable. This article does not seem notable. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet notability[15]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Dr. Varshil Mehta. Thanks for your comments. If you guys feel, it can be edited and made better, do let me know. I can help, and if you want to have it deleted, You are most welcome as well. MedTime (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deleted it most likely won't be restored to be made better. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing it so minutely. Its better to have it deleted, since people do not feel like it is notable enough! Thanks a lot :) MedTime (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not satisfying notability standards. — soupvector (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely more neutral now (thanks to other editors), but continues to lack sufficient evidence of notability. — soupvector (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel, that shall be enough. Please proceed with deletion. Thanks.MedTime (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, let me give some more details about the page 1) All the important articles have some citations which means, I can include those as secondaries. Secondary, why I feel that it is notable: I have spoken to the Dr. Jagdish Khubchani, who is also the director of World Association of Medical Editor, and in his opinion, I am the youngest person to hold a position of an Editor in Chief and Publisher of a Medical or Public health Journal. Furthermore, I have also applied for the same in Guinness World Records and Limca Book of Records. I am expecting the decision soon as well. Secondary I have represented India (Actually South Asia to be honest, but they have mentioned India in the pic) in a fully sponsored trip by Elsevier to give a speech at Bangkok. Also I was awarded with Indian's Best Young Researcher Award by Grabs Charitable Trust. I have also published many articles which are from good source, At an age of 25 years, I feel that it is quite notable especially from India. Also, since I have made the article, which is a problem as well, I declared the COI from the beginning. Furthermore, I has also requested every one to edit it by placing the editing request. Also, i requested JJMC89 to review it before publishing, which he saw it later. If you guys still feel that it is not notable, I have already mentioned that please go ahead and delete it without even wasting a second. Thank you every one for your time and have a great week ahead. I accept the decision may what ever it is! Thank you everyone and stay blessed :) MedTime (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jagdish Khubchani is not a source and what Khubchani said needs to be sourced. Many articles are reviewed by people who make mistakes before they were added to articlespace.

You added sources that you authored or co-authored such as this article. That is the original article. You would need to find a source reporting about it to show WP:WEIGHT that it should be added. You would not add the original article. You would add the source reporting about it. See Edzard Ernst for an article with many independent sources. To show an article is notable there must be many independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? https://lemire.me/blog/2017/04/07/science-and-technology-links-april-7th-2017/ It is reporting my salt article. There are many like this reporting the original articles. MedTime (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a blog and may not be a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about the original articles citing my articles? Not only for this but for all other pages as well? In case I edit some other page, do I need to add the secondary source or the original source? In research articles, we generally cite the original articles since they deserve the credit. Thanks. MedTime (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just to be clear, I did not review (any version of) this article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yup, I never said that you did. I just said that I requested you to review and you saw later (In your talk page, it showed that that it has been posted already on net).MedTime (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough. Also appears like there's conflict of interest involved. Vignyana^talk 15:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion is done, can we now delete this page? I had placed db author, but it was revoked by some one. It is now wasting every one's time. Thanks. Hopefully, one day, every one will together write an article about me. I wont ever write any biography for sure from now onwards here but will write at some other places where they accept it. ;)MedTime (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @QuackGuru for all the editions and every one who tried to improve it. I was angry earlier, but now I am really happy, that people here are really great and they atleast care to help here. Starting with Dr. james, I saw his profile and he is a master piece. Still he cared to see the article and special thanks to Quackguru. Thanks. I will save all your edits and will use at some other place where I have to show case myself. :)MedTime (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you do become notable in the future, editors can start with this version. I did a quick cleanup. There still needs to be reliable independent sources to show that you are notable. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Indeed. I really wish they use your edits in future. Thanks :). How can we delete this page now?

It usually takes about 10 days. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm okay.. Can I make it blank at least? Otherwise, the tag of deletion does not look good. MedTime (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutral now. Others have edited it. It is too late for a tag. I recommend you take some time off from this and focus on other things. It could be deleted sooner if there is WP:SNOWBALL delete votes. You may be able to delete your picture from Wikipedia commons while you still can. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Done and Done. Thanks. Adios every one. MedTime (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional CV, no reliable source coverage to suggest that he qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Created by the person himself, thus violating WP:AB and WP:COI. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. As bad as any company advertising their products. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. If you click here you will notice it also says "homepage". If you click on homepage it leads to here. Everipedia does not know they are using the page for his homepage. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all the non-LinkedIn-type sources I can find are this, this, this and this. They are all merely indexes of studies that he has either presided over or taken part in. There's no independent coverage which suggests that his work has had a significant impact on his field of medicine and I can find few reliable peer-reviews. The autobiographical nature of the article is so severe that a substantial rewrite is needed to remove [[WP:PROMO|promotional material to comply with the neutrality policy. DrStrauss talk 09:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promotional fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and case of WP:TOOSOON .Subject is 26 year old and upcoming.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Parlo[edit]

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

not notable. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with nom, non-notable record label. Stikkyy t/c 18:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aguyintobooks remember to always include a thoughtful rationale. I whole-heartedly agree: there is no secondary coverage whatsoever; however, an inclusionist may vote keep just because of the lack of a policy-based rationale.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH proably applies, it fails that too. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I had to muse on this one. Indie record labels are difficult to suss the notability of sometimes, and Post-Parlo produced Home Volume IV, and Home Volume IV, which are notable albums. The bands they had signed to them are not particularly notable with the Western Keys, The Fall on Deaf Ears, and Actionslacks producing at most one album with the band (and largely being non-notable). menaechmi (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Scheele[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I doubt this person meets WP:GNG also given the subject matter of her work WP:PROF does not seem relevant. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly PROMO. "Career coach" is not notable per se. Art has no RS and was created by a short-lived SPA acct (7 total edits) about 9 years ago. Purpose seems to be to steer readers to her coaching business website. Agricola44 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Total lack of secondary sources and no claims for inherent notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a syndicated column and spinning it into three books sounds like the sort of thing that could plausibly be notable. But our article is heavily promotional and fails to make the case for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability. Web searches found only more promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a junk PR article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I must concur with the concerns that this is merely a puff piece. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear promo piece not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) A Guy into Books (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mythica[edit]

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

Unreleased game. only relevance is a copyright dispute which was quickly resolved with limited coverage. Fails WP:GNG A Guy into Books (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Received detailed, significant coverage from many reliable sources per consensus at WP:VG/S. To claim the coverage was limited, or limited by events, is incorrect. Coverage includes:

Announcement/Game Previews Coverage

Retrospectives/Famous Cancelled Game Coverage

Lawsuit

This is but a small, quick sampling. There's more, but already easily enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted under G11 by Alex Shih. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne & Co[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Run-of-the-mill business. Edwardx (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as has not had any discussion take place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the firm is old but not very large and no tradition of producing significant lawyers or judges. Legal aid work is pretty run of the mill non-notable stuff. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. essentially an advertisement. This could have been handled by G11. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. OK, it seems like the topic is notable, as the claim and evidence to that effect provided by Hzh has not been contested. As noted by others FANCRUFT is an essay and is more importantly not garnering consensus support among participants. That leaves the question of a merger with the main article open as well as concerns about the quality of the current article writeup (I see the tables and the presence of original research have been mentioned); I defer these to the article talkpage for further discussion as neither needs an AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thrones title sequence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pretty much all fancruft unfortunately, especially tables, no notibility outside topic of Game of Thrones. Having an Emmy does not make this notable, otherwise every title sequence that has got the award deserves an article. Ted Edwards 18:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title sequence does seem to be well-covered, however. A simple Google search brought up numerous — very recent at that — articles about it. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and so on. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A ton of filler content and unnecessary tables. This is better suited for a wiki. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:FANCRUFT -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Merge to Game of Thrones; though I'm not sure any content needs to be added. Argument as per above; WP:FANCRUFT. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Game of Thrones Brocicle (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the Emmy award does suggests that it has individual notability, and the title sequence has received widespread non-trivial media coverage, also parodied and adapted ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] in addition to some already given above and many more). These two facts should qualified the article under notability criteria - there is no specific notability guideline for title sequence, although winning a major award and having non-trivial coverage in reliable sources are the usual notability criteria for articles on various media such as music, TV, film and other related subjects, see e.g. WP:NMEDIA, WP:NMUSIC, etc. The article however needs more sources, and it could be trimmed, but these are different issues not relevant here because the notability criteria have been satisfied. Whether other title sequences that won award also have their own articles or not is also irrelevant (there is for example one for The Simpsons), the notability of each article is judged on its own. It should be noted that WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and not Wikipedia policy or guideline, and reason for deletion should be discussed in reference to WP:DEL-REASON or WP:NOT. Hzh (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: But once you remove all the tables, descriptions etc., it will have so little infomation it could easily be put on Game of Thrones. And Emmys do not equal notabilty; to my knowledge this is the only article on a title sequence. Ted E

dwards 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't want to merge it into the Game of Thrones main article, the article is already around the size of article where splitting should be considered, see WP:SIZE. The size of this article in any case is not a valid reason for deletion. I'll give the link for The Simpsons again - The Simpsons opening sequence, see also Opening and closing sequences of The Prisoner and The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence. There are also title sequence articles for films - e.g. James Bond, Star Wars. You determine the notability of individual article according the criteria as recommended by the guidelines (as already mentioned, the Game of Thrones title sequence qualifies with the award won, and good coverage), and not whether it is a title sequence or not. Hzh (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could do with losing the tables I guess but Game of Thrones is already long and I believe there is enough out there to support a separate article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, sigcov ensures it should be kept. Editors such as myself may not like the obsessive detail of some of the tables, but any of us who have any such concerns can trim down the article and/or use any other available discussion mechanisms. That the nom does not like "especially tables" is no argument for an AfD process. XavierItzm (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: All I was saying was the tables are the bit I dislike the most, but the not the only thing I dislike. I dislike the "rules" for the sequence and the over detailed description of the sequence. Once you get rid of those, you're left with a stub, that could easily be included on Game of Thrones. Ted Edwards 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unjustified content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is standard for WP:SPINOFF articles. The title sequence article is typical of articles that are subtopic of any main article, where you'd put a summary of the content in the main article so as not to create excessive bulk of a subtopic in the main article that would skew the importance of the subtopic to the main article. Hzh (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh:Maybe it is me, but I'm not following your argument. This is a spinoff article, and seems appropriate for one - its length would be too long to include in the main article, and there is a decent summary in the main article. Could you perhaps re-word what you are trying to say? Benthatsme (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are saying what I said - this article is appropriate as a spinoff article, its length would be too long for the main article, and there is a summary in the main article. Hzh (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – For the reasons laid out by Hzh. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator suggests it is not notable, and that it qualifies as WP:FANCRUFT. While I agree that winning an Emmy does not alone make this topic notable, the many many secondary sources in the article and referenced above certainly ensures the topic clears the notability bar. Whether or not it is fancruft is immaterial. The fancruft essay (not a policy document) explains many common problems with articles that are written by 'fans' of a topic. Even if I were to grant the fact that in this article there are too many tables and too much detail (which I am not convinced of), then that is problem best addressed by edits and on the talk page, not by deletion. Benthatsme (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Benthatsme: The main problem with the tables is that they serve no encylopediac purpose at all; they are completely unnecessary. The only table I would want kept, should this discussion not end in my favour, would be the table of awards. Ted Edwards 21:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head. The issue is of form, not of nature. The page should probably edited and trimmed down. But not obliterated! The idea is to try and improve the Wikipedia, not to nuke it from orbit. XavierItzm (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in completely obliterating this work on this article. I feel that the necessary detail could be added to the Game of Thrones article, without the section being too long. Ted Edwards 22:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge this page into another article, then why start the deletion process? Separately, tables are not a problem, per se. They are often a much more natural way to present information than in text form. You seem to object to the tables, not the information within, which is confusing me. In any case, as I said before, that topic really belongs on the talk page for the article.Benthatsme (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I merge the articles, it's effectively a page delete, hence the discussion here. Also, I definitely object to the "info" in the table, it is completely pointless and unencyclopediac. It would be better just to say that the title sequence includes the cast and crew (perhaps obviously) and shows on a map some locations in the fictional world, changing depending on the episode. Ted Edwards 13:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An impressive piece of Original Research. Pure in-universe fan cruft, not an encyclopedic topic or treatment. Wrong wiki. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Numerically, there are more delete !votes than keep !votes, however, arguments like "poorly written" and "unsourced" can be addressed by editing and thus hold little weight. dsprc mentioned a couple of sources, after which the discussion is split between people arguing that those are enough to establish notability and those who disagree. So Why 06:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kennadi Brink[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. Some articles from WP:PW are deleted because of the copy-pasting issues from fanmade wiki sites, and this is no exception. Nickag989^talk 17:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nominator meant to say speedy delete, see here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written article on a person that is yet to become noteworthy. Maybe in a few years, but someone's jumped the gun here. 6SyXx6 (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Unsourced, all OR, no better than first article that was deleted a few months ago. Agricola44 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not any valid references to prove his identify to meet Wikipedia′s notability lowsMr.ref (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by external sources and is independent of references (or lack thereof) used in-article. Cunard raised similar point in last nom and provided examples of coverage. Article could use work but, subject is notable.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] (Also: Wikia is CC-BY-SA; thus, content is re-usable so long as properly attributed in summary or on article Talk.)-- dsprc ^[talk] 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources show how she wanted to become an athlete, and it's far from meeting WP:GNG. Nickag989^talk 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad-range of sources cover subject for years, at-length and in-detail. Thus, subject is notable per GNG. Further, it appears they are an athlete–not wanting–and according to sources, a professional athlete at that. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say the sources presented edges out to her being notable.★Trekker (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for actresses, that is what professional wrestlers are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? I just checked the entertainers section on notability guidelines (which actors and wrestlers are part of) where would it say that these sources which are notable and reliable are not enough?★Trekker (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources Nikki311 (talk · contribs) found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennadi Brink from the Miami Herald and New Times Broward-Palm Beach provide significant coverage of Kennadi Brink, allowing her to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The additional sources found by Dsprc (talk · contribs) further establish notability. This article notes that Jessika Heiser wrestles under the Kennadi Brink name.
Cunard (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG; sources presented at this AfD and the one prior are interviews and / or passing mentions, and are not sufficient for notability. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radmin[edit]

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

Article is mostly promotional in context and seems to be written mostly for promotional purposes. Contains very little to none in any relevant or encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Waaaay too promotional in tone and presentation.TH1980 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is nothing notable about the product. Too promotional, as per nomination. RetiredDuke 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geroyche[edit]

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

Fails music band notability standards. Little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and no indication of any standout qualities that would warrant passing the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 17:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (per nom). Almost a speedy A7, but after 12 years we can wait another couple of days to delete this. —Kusma (t·c) 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K's Holdings Corporation[edit]

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

Fails depth of coverage for corporate notability standards. The nearest thing to significant coverage is a mere business index in Forbes which confers no notability. Nothing more than directory entry-type sources are available. DrStrauss talk 17:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HighKing. No significant coverage, and no indication of notability in the article.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A number of possible sources were presented here, but other editors did not feel they satisfied WP:ORGDEPTH.

As an aside, while I think Soman's comments were a little edgy, claiming that they rose to the level of infringing WP:CIVIL seems a little over-sensitive. So, I'm going to take one

Plip!

, cut it in half, and distribute the pieces evenly :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek Labaik Pakistan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No coverage found. Greenbörg (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do you google before initiating an AfD? There is plenty of coverage of the organization. Just have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZ2dgz0pwk --Soman (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG without any doubt. The only information found has been in the form of user-uploaded Youtube videos and a few blog posts. Those don't even come close to passing WP:IRS, nor are they sufficient to support notability on their own, nor have they even been sustained enough to support notability if (in theory) blogs and user videos were suddenly accepted as valid sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm I the only one that googles in the AfD process? see [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] --Soman (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, you need to keep the Wikipedia:Civility in mind because both of your comments above were decidedly uncivil. Even if you find the views of others strange or poorly thought-out, the policy still stands.

Secondly, the links you've provided still don't establish notability because only a few of them are actually about the subject. Those which are about the subject are tied to two separate protests against the religious affairs ministry, and those protests (as also established in the sources you provided) also included other groups - thus there is no specific coverage focusing on the subject itself, Tehreek Labaik Pakistan. Additionally, the majority of the links you just posted only mention the subject in passing, in most cases only a single time.

It's good that you're viewing even the comments of other editors with a skeptical eye on an AfD, but there are two problems here. The first is that you misunderstood the view of myself (I can't speak for GorgeCustersSabre): the issue isn't that I didn't search on Google, but that I did search and didn't find any information about the group itself. There were protests which occurred and weren't about Tehreek Labaik Pakistan itself, but rather were a part of wider anti-religious affairs ministry protests including multiple religious groups, not just this one. Now, that still doesn't mean my view is right, but it does mean that you have a significant misunderstanding of another editor's (my) view. You could have avoided that simply by asking me why I wrote what I did instead of jumping to conclusions.

The second problem is that neither of your comments have been polite, and that's definitely a cause for concern. The first impression I got is that you're either a fan of the article's subject pushing hard for its inclusion, thus indicating that your objectivity is compromised; or that your general manner of dealing with disagreement is to question the competence of anyone who disagrees with you, thus indicating that your temperament precludes a serious discussion.

That impression might be wrong, but it's reasonable as a first impression. You should give some serious consideration to future responses, and perform your own due diligence in the way of not jumping to conclusions about what other editors are doing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not to be uncivil, but I did question the rationale of both the original AfD nomination as well as your 'delete' vote. As a reminder, the nominator stated No coverage found, a statement that could only be true in case WP:BEFORE had not been conducted. The same editor had issued a number of other Pakistan-related AfDs in the recent past which similar arguments. You wrote "The only information found has been in the form of user-uploaded Youtube videos and a few blog posts", a statement that is clearly incorrect as the organization is covered in various large media in Pakistan such as Dawn, Jang, Mashriq, Tribune, Nation, etc.. I'm sorry if the way I worded your comment hurt your feelings, but at the same time you'd need to recognize that your initial comment turned out to be factually incorrect. As per whether coverage is sufficient to consider an organization as notable, there is no clearcut line (as is often manifested in AfD debates), but it must be noted that some of the links to large media outlets presented above do deal with the organization as the main focus of the respective articles (such as [63] and [64]) --Soman (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH, specifically there isn't sufficient depth of coverage to make it "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization".--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Hamlets Mediation Service[edit]

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

Not enough references to prove notability. Unlikely to become notable in the future, as it ceased to exist on or before 5 February 2016 (according to its entry on the Charity Commission's website, number 1060643).

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/RemovedCharityMain.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1060643&SubsidiaryNumber=0

--BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 04:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support Sondra.kinsey (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Entities like this are usually far below encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 20:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - only passing mentions in any reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:ORG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mianwali Development Trust[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only very minor mentions in reliable sources, does not have significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:ORG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of law schools in Pakistan. Merge already performed, can be verified from its history. Note the page was moved to a new title while this AFD was pending; both have been redirected. postdlf (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani universities that offer LLB courses[edit]

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

No purpose served. Fails guidelines. Greenbörg (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~.Merge. Meets WP:CSC criteria. ~~should however probably be renamed to List of Pakistani universities with authorized LLB programs~~. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of law schools in Pakistan, which already appears to fulfil the purpose of this list. Mar4d (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if only to use the more natural title. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unsure why this is being relisted, I already merged it. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Professional Players[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable. The English language references talk about the sportsmen and what they are doing, they do not support the article for the organisation. There is no corresponding non-English language. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The English-language references bear no resemblance to the content they supposedly support. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Kebangsaan Sempang[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. Could not find more than a passing mention in a news article discussing flooded places. Hardly anything worth salvaging. To whoever is searching for sources: please do make sure that they are about this school in the Malaysian state of Melaka/Malacca, as there are other similarly named schools. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no discussion has taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small primary school with no special claim to fame. No significant coverage in reliable sources, and elementary schools aren't inherently notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, entirely promotional with no rescuable content DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Hohl[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Leading Concepts, Inc. has no coverage outside of self-generated promotional/contacts forums; thus, no WP:SIGCOV.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ain Foundation for Social Welfare[edit]

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

Same article was created at arWP and was deleted as not being notable. Concerns were raised there about the contributors edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Resisting this as no discussion has taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PakTribune[edit]

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

this is not a newspaper. though several books cited news articles published by this news portal website [65] however the newswebsite itself has not been subject of coverage in RS. nor this news portal is among the highest traffic news sites in Pakistan.. ranking 21,700 in Pakistan therefore i consider it failing to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). a similar example is The News Tribe which ranks 2,600 in Pakistan and despite being in the G'books it was deleted as well. Saqib (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as no coverage in WP:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a friendly search suggestions on the talk page. Coverage should surface.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give reason why the page should be kept and provide RS. --Saqib (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:RS and doesn't have enough traffic or notability to have their own article. Excelse (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu Mehfil[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vinveli Payana Kurippugal(VPK)[edit]

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

Unremarkable movie KDS4444 (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any independent coverage myself Spiderone 10:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

modified searches:

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

WP:INDAFD: விண்வெளி பயணக் குறிப்புகள்

Keep per multiple existing independent sources [66] Per WP:SEP and WP:HANDLE and they need to be used, not deleted for lack of someone else not doing it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Plugged[edit]

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

We don't have article because it is a website. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No sources or citations to prove any notability or significant coverage by independent published sources Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthamender (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Newly launched website and lacks notability to have their own article. Excelse (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triza[edit]

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

Fails general notability with minimal secondary coverage. Blackguard 01:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing social media profiles and a few passing mentions (e.g., "produced by Triza"), but nothing in-depth that would suggest that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. gongshow talk 02:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Magna[edit]

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

Prod reason given by KGirlTrucker81 was "No indication of notability, fails NMUSIC and GNG following a Google search." I concur with this assessment. Only provided reference is a press release for their latest tour, and I found nothing better. Prod removed by author without explanation. Author has since improved formatting, but not the sourcing. --Finngall ^talk 04:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 05:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 05:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David R Newton[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article tagged for notability and orphan since Nov 2015 when article was created by SPA Paula Newton. Article has one reliable source (Science Museum) and one doubtful (Art UK). Search for sources finds only 16 plausible hits on Internet, blogs etc excluded, notability cannot be established. Exhibiting "with" famous artists does not confer inherited notability either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not consider that one mural located in a science museum meets NCREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Riddell (news)[edit]

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

Local newsperson, admittedly of a sizable city, and although the name seems to be fairly common (so it's possible I'm overlooking something that indicates he's received something other than very local coverage, I'm... just not seeing much to indicate that he's received anything other than extremely local coverage. Crated by a fairly obvious COI account besides. TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable to a scale beyond local level. Ajf773 (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable TV announcer. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italki[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why all the relists? It's pretty easy to see it's a poorly referenced WP:CORPSPAM article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- agree with the above: just corporate spam on a private company with no indications of notability or significance. Please delete it already :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Axe (Lillian Axe Album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The article does not indicate why the album is notable. The one reference does not help. A Google search is hampered by the name of the album being the same as the band, but I couldn't find any indication that this is considered a notable album, indeed the article on the band indicates that the album was not a commercial success. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goosebumps SlappyWorld[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. The article makes no indication why this line of books is notable. It is by a notable author, but notability is not inherited. The two references (both to Amazon) serve only to verify that the book titles exist. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided appropriate sources can be utilized to establish notability. R.L. Stein is nobody to sneeze at.TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Reviewed in Publishers Weekly and School Library Journal. I've added citations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Indoor Football[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Appears non-notable per WP:GNG (currently unsourced because it is new, however, even a search of news sources turns up three mentions mostly about the Cape Fear Heroes playing a game against the Steam – "played the Savannah Steam of the EIF..."). There is not even any WP:ROUTINE coverage (something that is not enough to GNG and typically only proves existence) of this and despite having already played one season, no scores or records were ever recorded or reported in the news. Not to mention, the games I did find reported on their self-published social media platforms, for an "indoor" football league all but two games were played outdoors and the other two (maybe up to four, hard to tell which were actually played) were in the unnamed converted warehouse. As of right now, this is still WP:TOOSOON for notability here. Yosemiter (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. oknazevad (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes notability. PXS1245 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — PXS1245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep 49.49.239.63 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — 49.49.239.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep 👍🏻Like. Kerpioniolopschique (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — Kerpioniolopschique (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Clearly encyclopedic. Might want to search for sources instead of just asking for it to be deleted, IMHO. Lololololollololllloolllll000000023 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — Lololololollololllloolllll000000023 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per consensus. Little Miss Wikipeda (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — Little Miss Wikipeda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- And then suddenly a ton of single-posting WP:SOCKs appear with no sources for WP:V and decide on their own "consensus" with themselves. A discussion is not a vote, you can't just flood the ballot box and "win". Sources are needed. Lets start with a source that provides even a single game of coverage between two teams in the EIF (not social media, but even that is lacking). Or even one of the team's season record last year. Good luck. Yosemiter (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how consensus works, bro! You can't just abuse the system like that! WP:NOTVOTE. 24.15.68.186 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is someone upset that consensus isn't going their way? No need to log out and WP:SOCK as an IP! 49.49.245.72 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not me, I would never use the term "bro". Perhaps you should read WP:CONSENSUS. (Also my IP would start with 192. or 71.) Yosemiter (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite what the deletionist snowflakes are saying! 49.49.245.72 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable. Go out and search 4 sources instead of complaining that there are none! Punicdana (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per democracy! Menessheik (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep freedom of expression. Yuleguru (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arrowcotes (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus. Sofiawrapt (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hebisian (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the socks above, WP:PROVEIT. I clearly explained that I did do a search and came up with three mentions which are not sufficient for GNG. (In fact the mentions were in local articles about the Heroes, a team then in the SIF, that played the Steam. It was then mentioned that the Steam play in the EIF. That is about three degrees of separation from actually being subject matter.) Yosemiter (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramchandra Tallam[edit]

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

autobiography without RS / further search beyond those provided fails to find anything substantial Chetsford (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG. Per nom, article is clearly written as an autobiography, with sections espousing the traits of the article subject. Note that per WP:NOTINHERITED sources cited about his company (Shilpa) that make no mention of the article subject do not convey notability. I would also argue that some of the article's content (namely Ramchandra Tallam#Shilpa Group and Ramchandra Tallam#OUR GROUP COMPANIES) violates WP:PROMOTION.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly promotional article, plenty of puffery and no independent sources. Would need to be done over from scratch even if the subject were notable. --Slashme (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cleaned the article up and we are left with zero RS for this individual. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable source of notability.Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. (Ted) Hutchinson[edit]

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

fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not appear the journal he edits is notable enough to grant academic notability for being editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wP:GNG and WP:BIO agree with Johnpacklambert above that the journal is not notable enough to grant academic notability for just being its editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Abu Hayat Opu[edit]

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

Only substantial coverage I was able to find was this - [67]. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable as a writer or an entrepreneur. Altaf (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of the usual types, including by Bengali script name, found no independent reliable sources deeper than an author credit. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like Bangladeshis have learnt how to create Wikipedia "pages" and such articles keep popping up at the same rate at which Facebook pages used to pop up in early days of Facebook Pages. --nafSadh did say 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter in popular culture[edit]

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

New article; it's literally just a list of trivia forked from a trivia section in Street Fighter. No indication is made as to why this video game series has had such a major impact on popular culture that every mention of it in other forms of media should be listed. Originally redirected it back to the parent article, but author reverted so moving to here. --Pres N 16:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its one giant violation of WP:TRIVIA/WP:GAMECRUFT. Notable examples could be mentioned in "Impact/Legacy" type sections of the series, or respective game, articles. But this by itself isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:POPCULTURE, the references are trivia, as many of the sources are dubious and the reference-r did not acknowledge the references. The proper response would've been to cull the trivia from the list, not split it off._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, this type of trivia appears to be considered acceptable. All of the trivia is also referenced by reliable third party sources. Because Street Fighter is most likely to be referenced in numerous media in the future, it's understandable for a page of this nature to be continually expanding which is why I moved the minor section on the main Street Fighter article to it's own page. Perhaps a more suitable action would be to Rename to "List of popular culture references to Street Fighter". Also other articles which exist that are in the same style as this one are List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange and Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, the latter having been nominated for deletion multiple times for the same reason as this one with the result always being "keep". Plus, this deletion nomination appears to be WP:ITSCRUFT. AnonUser1 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AnonUser1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Please be aware of WP:OSE. Especially considering the examples of "precedent" you list have a rough history of "delete" and "no consensus" at AFD, and have all sorts of improvement tags pointing out their shortcomings. Not exactly the type of stuff we're striving for here. Also, renaming does nothing to address the concerns here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial information at best. Can't imagine this ever being properly sourced, with notable and significant sources discussing the cultural impact of Street Fighter. We can't expect it to become that either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above delete votes. I'd also note that said MOS:POPCULT page noted in the above Keep vote advises that this content be worked into the main article content or as a section within the main article. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is purely WP:GAMECRUFT. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TRIVIA, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:GAMECRUFT. A list of insignificant references doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TheDeviantPro and The1337gamer. The article is purely WP:GAMECRUFT. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Present day descendants of the defeated Maratha Warriors of the Battle of Panipat (1761)[edit]

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

By title alone you can think that the article is WP:POV, it is a POV article with original research. There are some speculations and some possibilities but sources are not reliable enough to trust these claims per WP:NOTNEWS. Even if we were to believe that there are descendants of the Maratha Warriors in Haryana, Balochistan, Afghanistan, what more explanation do we need? Having an article about this simple thing is simply too much. Capitals00 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, poorly sourced, unlikely to be better sourced. As noted on the talk page, individual articles on these communities will probably be a better approach provided reliable sources can be found.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unsourced, OR, and possible POV violation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Not shown to be notable and sources are poor. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect. It does have sources about this group that seem to satisfy WP:V, but the current article uses them poorly and is full of WP:OR. I think a severely cut-back description could go either in Maratha or Third battle of Panipat. The namespace itself is of no value, so no redirect. Agricolae (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not even remotely salvageable and the different titles are beyond imagination! I'm not going to give another list of acronyms that this fails, but it has to go at the earliest. —SpacemanSpiff 11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just found this on net: What happened here in the previous deletion, Admins please check - [68]. The new Article uses well known Major New paper Sources, These News organisations have Wikipedia articles on their own. There is a need to add in line references and the template has been added. - mrigthrishna (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Atulsnischal (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete Per nom Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SpacemanSpiff is leaving threatning messages on my talk page as I created this stupid article as per him and trying to get some editors of generally related articles in interesting them to better it. trying to talk down to me about my contributions mrigthrishna (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

I've looked through the logs on your talk page to find evidence of threats. I do not see any, but rather see an editor who has warned you numerous times. To accuse someone of threatening you is a serious allegation. Please place a hyperlink to which message exactly that you think is threatening. Willard84 (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title of the page is ridiculously wordy, and there is literally only one reference on the entire article. Is this even a notable topic worthy of an article? I don't think so personally. I do appreciate the editor's apparent intent to contribute to WP, but this article doesn't meet basic standards. Willard84 (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article tells us absolutely nothing encyclopedic. I suspect it of being written to promote some kind of nationalist agenda. It relates to an event about 250 years ago. That is about 1- generations back. If every soldier had two children and so on generation by generation, each would have 1000 descendants in this generation. With some 1000s present, we are potentially talking about millions of people. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly not 5 or 10 people but Millions of People, and when millions of people can relate to this ancestory then Wikipedia should have an article on it. I see no Editor helping or trying to attach in line references or bettering the article but just exercising their trigger finger. mrigthrishna (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 07:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is non-notable. Sources don't look very reliable. POV issues galore. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Smallbone[edit]

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

I see no reason why this brother has to have to has his own article. For context, he is half of the Christian music group For King & Country, the other half of the group is his brother, Luke Smallbone. Luke doesn't have an article; his name redirects to the band. That's my problem: why is one brother independently notable but the other isn't? I don't see anything in this article that would suggest that he is independently notable outside of the band.

Now just to be clear, For King & Country is absolutely notable through both GNG and NBAND criterion C8 "Has won or been nominated for a major music award" (and probably other criteria, too). I will also disclose that I am familiar with them and enjoy their music. But I just don't think that Joel or Luke is notable outside the real accomplishments made by their band. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Grammy awards/nominations plus some other areas where improvement can be added (saw an article where he did some notable work on his own regarding awareness of human trafficking.) Expansion, not deletion, is the best route here. South Nashua (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: Did he get those awards/nominations as an individual artist? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: I think being nominated, even as part of a band, is enough on its own. Plus there's room for growth here on top of that. South Nashua (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep No, nominations alone are not enough, it requires interest from RSes about the nomination, and yes, they must be for the individual, not as a member of a duo. With that said, he has enough coverage in fringe media for his involvement in the films he's been in. That coverage is likely because he's a member of the group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Article creator) - No, his brother Luke is not independently notable for music or I would have created pages for both instead of just creating a redirect for Luke. What he is independently notable for is his leading role in Priceless (2016 film) which qualifies under WP:ENT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For lead actor in Priceless.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. General disagreement on whether this is a POV fork of something, or not. One suggestion here is that renaming the article might solve some of the problems, but no consensus on that either.

My suggestion is that people continue to work on this, using the article talk page as a discussion forum. If some time goes by and people feel the issues raised here have not been addressed, it can always be brought back here for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol invasion of Bulgaria and Serbia[edit]

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

Totally unsourced POV fork that created to justify claims about Bulgarian wars. See List of wars involving Bulgaria} I asked weeks ago for sourcing to occur and there has been nothing (not even an expansion to the article beyond about a one line stub). Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is this a fork of? I see the article was renamed in 2015 from "Mongol invasion of Bulgaria", and I could see the page being renamed again, but I don't see how it is a fork. That said, I agree the article might not be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia (see below). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption on my part, It was created very soon after I threatened (on the list of wars involving Bulgaria article) to remove any wars not actually linked to an article about that war. Then those wars were linked to this article, and nothing more was done. Thus this seems to exist solely to justify content in another article.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Looking this up, it seems that in the spring of 1242, Mongol forces moved from the Hungarian plain eastwards, possibly in retreat, after the invasion of Hungary (see Battle of Mohi). They were in pursuit of Bela IV who had fled to Ragusa/Dalmatia. during their pursuit, they raided Bulgaria and Kaliman I was induced to pay tribute and accept suzerainty. (Madgearu, Alexandru. The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185-1280). Brill, 2016. p228; Vásáry, István. Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365. Cambridge University Press, 2005. p70) Kiliman was Bela IV's nephew, for what it is worth. I think the basic information could go into the aftermath section of the Battle of Mohi page. The events are already mentioned at Kaliman I of Bulgaria. Madgearu's account suggests some pitched battles or full sieges based partly on archaeological evidence, but notes there is some confusion whether some of these events occurred during the 1242 raids or at another time. Vásáry emphasizes the smallness of the destruction during the raids and does not mention any battles or sieges. I would support an article about the Mongol raids of 1242 into the region, but it is probably better covered at the Battle of Mohi and Kaliman pages, as it sort of already is. The title, "Invasion of Bulgaria and Serbia" does seem to suggest that this event was something different than it was. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without prejudice to merging. I think ideally we'd have an article on the whole Hungary–Dalmatia–Bulgaria campaign, but as of now we have only this stub and an article on the one decisive battle (Mohi). The claim that Bulgaria fought a war with the Mongols seems entirely justified, from what I'm reading (Jackson, Mongols and the West). I will try to expand the article with sources in the coming days. For now, I have added citations where requested. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Srnec. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What I am looking at is an article that we ought to have, with sources, unless it is a fork of something else, to which it should be redirected or merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used as a wiki link for a number of "wars" between 1223 & 1341, that is what is is a POV fork off, the idea there were a number of Bulgarian Mongol wars.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of wars between Bulgars and Mongols. Besides the campaign of 1242, Jackson mentions major campaigns in 1284/5 and again c. 1295, as well as a state of constant raiding in the 1270s and a sort of Bulgarian civil war involving the Mongols in 1300–01. The list of wars may be crap (haven't checked), but the article you've put up for deletion was entirely factually correct—and that's sourcing entirely from English academic publications. Srnec (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I looked for sources I could not find any. Moreover I asked for sources, and none were provided. In fact it took this AFD for any work to be done. Maybe the problem was the name of the article (and still is). After all this was a raid, not a war or invasion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian law school rankings[edit]

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

From similar reasons to those used when List of Indian University Rankings was deleted, these lists should too. There is an issue of copyright in lists in quoting an entire list. The lists are also misleading, as few institutes are listed compared to the number rated and the ratings are not kept up to date. Finally, the data isn't even correctly sourced, and no one bothers to fix them for years. Muhandes (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian University Rankings. These articles are poorly sourced and act are more than enrolment guide rather than an encyclopedia as per WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiser Barnes[edit]

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

This was a WP:BLAR that was contested. The argument for deletion as presented was similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ruhe, notability is not inherited. Kiser Barns is only covered in subjects relating to his position on the Universal House of Justice and does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources. menaechmi (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Similar to several other biographies that have already been deleted. Being a member of the Universal House of Justice does not provide notability. In this case, the only biographical information comes from a single paragraph in a Baha'i announcement, and a single paragraph in an archived World Bank faith dialogue. The members of the Universal House of Justice do not act as clergy and have no special authority outside of group decisions. Kiser Barnes is also a living person, which requires a higher standard of sources than what this article presents. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there were also some attribution errors in the original work up that had to be removed that reduced the notability of Mr. barnes for wikipedia purposes. Smkolins (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Platt[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A brief look at the lone source reveals images of his paintings (actually not half-bad) with no review/critique whatsoever. My WP:BEFORE search also did not garner any significant secondary sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checking the sourcing available to me, newspapers.com and HighBeam, I find a couple of mentions of work he did but nothing substantial. Maybe it's a case of WP:TOOSOON? Regards So Why 06:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as unverifiable —SpacemanSpiff 04:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amilahawa Chowk[edit]

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

Unverifiable, not one source confirming the existence of Amilahawa Chowk could be found Fram (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of existence let alone notability Spiderone 10:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think whoever created the article probably entered the name incorrectly. The term "chowk" means a crossroad or intersection. However, there does seem to be a place called Amilahawa in Sirsa, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. In fact, this website [69] seems to have a village name called "Amilahawa". --DreamLinker (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just found more references to a place called "Amilahawa Chauraha" which means Amilahawa intersection. (The words Chauraha and Chowk are used interchangeably in Hindi). Let me look for more.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is weird, but it seems the rural water website [70] doesn't seem the list the supposed village name. There are similarly named villages, but they are in other states. I am coming up at dead ends.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have given up on searching. Either this is a small locality (and likely just an intersection) or we have the name wrong. In any case, the page has hardly any information, so I don't think we are losing much.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 08:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh Industrial and Trading Estate[edit]

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

Unclear what the article is about, since the United Kingdom does not have government guaranteed "trading estates". It is perhaps something to do with a public sector company that builds industrial estates (a construction company). In the meantime it appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the UK in the article appears to be a cultural cringe rather than anything substantive. This source says that one of these estates was the largest industrial estate in Pakistan in 1991, and other reliable sources are found by the searches automically provided by the nomination process. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has established 8 industrial estates in Sindh province. There are plenty of sources like DAWN and Daily Times, hence notable. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources isn't enough to meet CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have had three example of sources linked in this discussion, and they are obviously, from the spoon-fed links automatically provided above, not the only ones. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well if someone will kindly rewrite the article so it makes sense this can be dealt with. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by people doing the work that they want done themselves rather than demanding that others do it. I prefer, as a volunteer like you and everyone else, to choose for myself where, if anywhere, to work. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete this page, because it is incomprehensible cruft left unsourced for 8 years with no assertion of notability. I'm just saying that if you want to keep it, kindly improve it to match your comments. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is incomprehensible to you then you need to improve your English comprehension. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the main issue has been dealt with, but what does this mean? These facilities were designed to create an industrial environment congenial for intending industrialists if not industrial facilities were provided this article is either about a company or an industrial estate, it seems to be both! This needs to be dealt with at some convenient point. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 08:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid N. Shah[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTE, does not appear to have a WP:CCOS, appears to be solely promotional in nature to advance a brand. PureRED | talk to me | 14:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ak Service & Food Equipment[edit]

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

PRODded as promotion. No secondary sources. PROD removed without comment. Rhadow (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG. Ajf773 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A barely-referenced WP:SPA article about a company. The text makes no claim to encyclopaedic notability and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 22:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melisa Michaels[edit]

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

Not enough refernces showing notability A Guy into Books (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets ANYBIO and GNG. Check the 'News' and 'Books' find sources links above. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has published a number of books with large publishers, meets author guidelines. --SouthernNights (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--the article is just a resume, but the subject seems notable per our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really clear keep meets GNG with the basic awards and coverage, Sadads (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super suthar[edit]

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

Google search shows few independent, reliable sources which suggest that Suthar passes notability guidelines for creative professionals or the general notability guideline. Sources that are provided do not give significant coverage. DrStrauss talk 13:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Recreation of slated article Vijay Suthar. A Google news search for Super Suthar or Vijay Suthar return nothing that shows the subject meets notability criteria. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - per above Spiderone 10:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/vijay-suthar/1081379 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhseema (talk • contribs) 05:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS; I'm not sure that this can be counted as a source Spiderone 17:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Martin[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only sources are YouTube videos. Edwardx (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deal with any Promo issue by improving the article. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Breton[edit]

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

This whole article reads like an advertisement for Breton's career. Most of the article is written by two accounts that have nothing but Joel Breton edits (BilboBaggins77 and Spacecaser). Previous edits by BilboBaggins77 claimed that he was a cosmonaut, an international super producer and that he produced various notable games such as Duke Nukem, Quake, Unreal and Doom but these claims don't hold upon closer inspection. He has worked on couple of moderately successful games, but I wouldn't call him a notable contributor to the industry. WP:GNG possible WP:SPIP Rusentaja (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a personal bio of a non-notable person. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The list of game credits is impressive; a couple of the links, ostensibly to Wayback Machine, are most unimpressive. The nominator is concerned with (a) the tone of the piece, which is an editing matter and not a notability matter; and (b) the fact that single purpose editors have been involved, which is likewise not a valid reason for deletion. I therefore favor keeping on procedural grounds, since no valid rationale for deletion has been presented. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the games on his Gameography are of low notability. It consists mostly of console ports, flash games, spinoff games and level packs, none of which have garnered much attention. Most notable game on his list is Unreal, but even then he worked as an associate producer for GT Interactive, the publisher of the game. I'd still say there's a notability issue. Rusentaja (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Joel Breton is an American game producer who has produced many award-winning games throughout his career including, the first version of Unreal and the first Unreal Engine - version 1.0, Duke Nukem: Land of the Babes, an original 3rd person game developed for the PlayStation platform, Pirates of the Caribbean, Bomberman Live -- the only N. American developed Bomberman game in history which is also the highest rated version in the franchise, Terraria, Payday 2, Sniper Elite 2, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, and he pioneered free-to-play console gaming when he designed and launched Gems of War and Battle Islands on PS4 and XBO. Breton is a frequent keynote speaker at global developer conferences such as Game Developer's Conference 2017 where he was a speaker for 3 sessions [71], VRX Summit[72], Wireless Influencers 2016 [73], Japan Virtual Reality Summit[74]. He is currently the President of Vive Studios, HTC's content development and publishing division where he oversees development of more than 30 games through the development process from initial concept to global launch [75]. Breton is a key spokesperson for HTC Vive, and he is frequently interviewed by global media outlets for his viewpoint on AAA gaming, virtual reality gaming, video game publishing, and video game development. [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81][82]. Breton is also responsible for bringing two of the largest video game franchises to Virtual Reality in 2017, Fallout 4 VR from Bethesda Game Studios [83], and L.A. Noir from Rockstar Games [84], [85]. This article should be updated with additional information outlined here. ````Spacecaser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecaser (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonic Temple[edit]

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

(Also by implication the associated album articles: Into the Glorious Battle, Chapter I (Cryonic Temple album), Blood, Guts & Glory, In Thy Power, Immortal (Cryonic Temple album))

They're apparently signed to a record label with... an article... but it's a reference-less list of acts, so it's doubtful that the label is itself notable. All of the album articles are themselves basically reference-less lists.

News searches for the bast returns a handful of results, most of which are either patently non-reliable or extremely niche metal sites. None of the members seems to be independently notable that I can tell. They... at least claim to have put out enough stuff that it arguably avoids A7, but just sticking around for a long time and putting out records doesn't notability make.

None of the non-English versions are any better, and that there is no Swedish article for a Swedish band, when there are articles in English, Spanish, Polish and Scots doesn't bode well. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference for albums are being changed to be other sources than the current record label. Cryonic Temple has performed on Swedens biggest festival Peace and Love several times as well as Swedens biggest metalfestival including Sweden Rock Festival. Also performed twice Sabaton Open Air and in Germany Headbangers open Air. Also toured in Scandinavia and soon going to Italy.

Cryonic Temple songs has over 3 millions views/streams on youtube, Spotify as well other sites and have been featured on radio all over the world such as in USA, South america and various countries Europe such as Spain, Sweden, Germany.

Most Famous songs are Eternal Flames of Metal with over 533.000 views on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVUnY6_Rt6M

Beastslayer over 133.000 views on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMWgmOG6nQU A Soldiers Tale over 151.000 views on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxbyeUBck8

A Soliders Tale on Spotify with over 270.600 streams Eternal Flames of Metal on spotify over 263.000 streams as wellother songs on Spotify.

Also reached billboard list at with their new album "Into the glorious Battle" Was number 13 on Germany itunes list in april 2017.

All 5 albums has international releases and been released worldwide and reviews can be found in bigger as well as smaller magazines. Seems as some pages were set up by fans and are now being completed as well as references are being added.

From Cryonic Temple Facebookpage: Cryonic Temple was founded in 1996 and the musicstyle is melodic Heavy / Power Metal. Cryonic Temple was together with Orphan Gypsy and Sabaton founders of the new Power Metal wave in Dalarna in early 2000's. Cryonic Temple has through the years performed at festivals suchs as Sweden Rock Festival, HeadBangers Open Air (Germany), Peace And Love, Gothenburg Metal Festival, Motala Metal Festival, 2000 Decibel. Cryonic Temple has also toured with Burning Point (Finland) and Tragedian (Germany) in connection with the release of the album " Immortal". Cryonic Temple has been an opening act for Uriah Heep, Saxon,Tad Morose, Lion's Share, Amaranthe, Civil War and Paul Dianno (ex. Iron Maiden).

Five CDs has been released worldwide: Chapter I (2002, Underground Symphony) Blood, Guts and Glory (2003, Limb) In Thy Power (2005, Limb) Immortal (2008, MetalHeaven)

NEW ALBUM!!! Into the Glorious Battle (2017, Scarlet Records

Written by FreewheelerCT — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreewheelerCT (talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FreewheelerCT. If you can provide reference to the types of magazine reviews and things that you mention, that would be helpful in trying to gauge the notability of the subject. Unfortunately, lots and lots of views on social media and streaming services is often a sign that an artist may have sources available about them and their work, they don't really count for much as far as being sources in-and-of-themselves. TimothyJosephWood 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; not finding anything relevant and reliably sourced on Google Books or Google News. bd2412 T 18:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be a fan page; no indications of meeting WP:NBAND or other notability guidelines. Youtube views do not count (and they are not high enough to presume notability). Such content belongs on the band's facebook page. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles "Jock" Love[edit]

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

Subject of article does not appear to meet WP:SOLDIER nor WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Poorly written. Un-sourced. I'll note that BEFOREing this was difficult due to the common name of the subject - so possibly I've missed something, however the article itself doesn't assert notability in any significant fashion. A complete fail of SOLDIER (low rank, only campaign medals, nothing significant he did). The article itself was probably sourced from his service record - onto which the record of his unit at the time was superimposed. Nothing post-war described would assert notability.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; does not meet WP:SOLDIER; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the no original research policy and partially the verifiability policy (in the personal details); the article states that it is based on primary sources, only cites primary sources, and I don't find any secondary sources searching the usual suspects. If there is a more Australian-focused newspapers.com type site, perhaps someone can check there. Similarly, perhaps there is more offline, so I'd be willing to reconsider if evidence were provided that an article on this subject is possible without OR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we have Trove, an extensive digital archive of Australian newspapers. Couldn't find anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior NCO who won no decorations. Admirable but not notable. Pure family history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN NCO. The engagements of his units may be notable, but that does not mean that he is. I have not checked the one source cited, but guess it is his military record card, a document that should exist for every soldier. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER I'm afraid. Low ranking, awarded only the usual campaign medals. We could write an article like this one on every one of the 60,000 Australian servicemen of the Great War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't keep the article at least in its present form. Capitals00 (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Ohio Northern Region BBYO Regional Boards[edit]

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

Non-notable list, no reliable sources to establish notability. This belongs on Wikibbyo, the user-editable site where it is sourced from. Pontificalibus (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not properly sourced. Not clear that list article would be notable even if sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list of non-notable people for a non-notable topic. Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-encyclopedic and not integrated in any way into the rest of the encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Sourcing pending, people are notable board members of one of the largest Jewish youth organizations in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark612 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark612, as you are the author of the article you should be able to provide evidence of notability for a majority of those names. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable people in a non-notable list. Yoninah (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list and the people are not notable - Galatz ^Talk 13:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Al-Haidos[edit]

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

Article lacks credible citations, and also has a stream of blocked users in the history. It would seem elements of conflict of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added new references to article and founded his name on severel news on google. as i checked the content of article approximately are provided by references and external linksMr.ref (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr.ref Added a couple reasonable sources and also Article written according to guidelines of Wikipedia (person is notable per secondary reliable sources).prior to read the article, I checked out the references and I realized that the references are authentic.after that I read the article and matched the text content to references and except education section, the text content of article matches the references and they are indoor of references.It is usually difficult to find any sourcing an engineer, this one has quite a few good ones, plus one of them actually even asserts notability.after that, I searched the title of article in Google and other search engine,I realized in second of the Google′s results,is his twitter which is verified.as I know verification is only for notable persons.so I think the subject of article meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)Mehdikhan20 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this person is notable for wikipedia and I added a good source about him which he is in the photo of news.The article has references from reliable sources of news such as official local news agencies in Qatar in English. Leodikap (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article probably needed a great dose of cleanup, but its subject satisfies WP:GNG. Erin93 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Birch[edit]

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

May fail WP:GNG, per past notes on the article talk page. Yes, I have tried a WP:BEFORE myself also and, as someone else said, it seems odd that there isn't much in the way of decent sources for what appears prima facie likely to be something well known in the art world. This nomination might result in something useful where others have failed. Sitush (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Newspapers.com now that the subscription includes the extra newspapers, but there were just a couple of incidental mentions. I just can't find any reason to keep this article. Leschnei (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC) @Leschnei: are you meaning to vote delete? LibStar (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Leschnei (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. the only reasonable coverage is 2 hits in July in monte carlo press. the other hits are small mentions. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squint (antenna)[edit]

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

Dicdef, has a source but does not appear notable Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: What about this gives the appearance of non-notablity? Have you checked antenna texts for references? ~Kvng (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Kvng: I see nothing that makes it more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that WP:NOT#DICT somehow applies here? Care to elaborate? ~Kvng (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It defines what it is, nothing more. Doesn't explain why it's something that should be here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DICT applies when it is not possible to write an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Do you beleive that is the case here? There's no justification for deleting a stub in need of development. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly acceptable, encyclopedic article. I eagerly await the nominator's answer to Kvng's question. Rentier (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument I made. I claim that the subject is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia based on a cursory literature review: I see multiple books and papers that devote lots of space to various aspects and applications of the antenna squint. I don't feel obliged to go into more detail in absence of a valid argument for deletion. Rentier (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, topic is notable, with many sources that discuss it in detail. e.g. "Phased-Array Antenna Beam Squinting Related to Frequency Dependency of Delay Circuits"; "Effect of Wideband Beam Squint on Codebook Design in Phased-Array Wireless Systems"; "Cross Polarization and Beam Squint in Single and Dual Offset Reflector Antennas", etc. It's a major concept in antenna design. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple WP:BEFORE type search shows many reliable references. In addition to the RS pointed out by Chiswick Chap, I added two refs to the article, both of them handbooks of antenna design. This is a basic topic in phased-array and traveling-wave antenna design and performance. --Mark viking (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Tolba[edit]

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

The nominator (User:Aelita14) left the following reason: "This article is self-promotion and publicity for the person". Note that I merely copy it here, I do not have myself an opinion on whether the article should be deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is good but do some announcement can be deleted promoted without deleting the article 196.142.36.251 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Egyptian journalist and regionally known why he is being deleted 41.232.197.47 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC) in my opinion the article just need some edits instead of deleting it, he has many articls in a lot of famous egyptian and arabian journals Utrexxx (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's very well known digital Media consultant in egypt and there are so many articles celebrating what he has done in this field of digital media , i don't think this article deserve to be deleted Sehamkhaled (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for this person, and I found Arabic sites famous writer articles about him and his work AhmedKhaled777 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This person is the director of business and digital media for many artists in Egypt and found news about him in the name أسامة طلبة MohamedTamer (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG imho. After examining some of the Arab sources (at least two of which are virtually identical, which casts some doubt upon their independence), it seems this is a young man of 23 in charge of the e-marketing of some celebrities such as Mohammed Henedi, Jamal al-Arab Ruan bin Hussein, Rana Samaha, Mina Atta, Shadi Ghitani, or Shirin Yahya, who seem quite happy with the work he is doing promoting their images. Is that enough to ensure the personal notability of Osama Tolba? I have my doubts...
Some of the other Arab sources are downright irrelevant (one of them being a Twitter account), and another one had my anti-virus screaming!
Beyond that, Osama Tolba is some kind of free lance journalist, and, since October 2016, the editor in chief of website istarmag.com. To sum it all up, I am afraid he moved from e-marketing others to e-marketing himself. --Azurfrog (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in response to the Azurfrog first l wanna tell you something Osama Tolba is a famous moderator here in Egypt and he He is a TV programmer and has many guests.AhmedKhaled777 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi in response to Azurfrog

Osama is very famous guy in Egypt he is a TV Programmer and also very famous in cinema industry, he also a journalist and wrote for Huff post.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.223.150.63 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Digital Media consultants and bloggers are rarely notable, and this one misses the mark. Sources are WP:SPIP or otherwise not suitable for notability. Appears to be a vanity page to generate more business; clearly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - all of references are Arabic and he hasn't article in Arabic WikipediaLeodikap (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; reads like a promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was been improved I wish it would have been better by my greetings to all AhmedKhaled777 (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sight (film)[edit]

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

Little meaningful, substantive, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The film fails film notability guidelines. Google search. DrStrauss talk 20:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the four reviews in the "Reception" section absolutely qualify as significant coverage to make the film notable per WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The film is the main topic of these four reviews, so it is more than enough. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Erik's statements above, the film has enough coverage in its reception to stick around. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep per having coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Bagshaw[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Prod was declined because she is a member of the Liberal Democrat's Federal Board. I don't see that being on yhe board of a minor political party meets notability. Coverage is what you would expect for any political candidate. Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NPOL. All coverage of Bagshaw relates to her failed political candidacies. There is nothing in national media or no in-depth profiles. AusLondonder (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being on the organizational board of a political party is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about her work in that role to clear WP:GNG, and being a non-winning candidate for parliament is not a notability criterion at all. But the sourcing present here isn't adequate, consisting mainly of local pennysavers and her political party's own internal newsletter — and she isn't the subject of any of the few sources that actually count for anything toward GNG, but merely has her existence namechecked in coverage that isn't about her. This is not the type of sourcing that it takes to get someone into Wikipedia for the notability claim that's been provided here. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Aditya[edit]

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

particularly potentially doubtful encyclopic relevance, since mainly sourced by "bradleystokexxx.co.uk", but also the wiki may be interpreted as 'profiling', for instance the first section (lead revision as of 15:37, 31 August 2017):

[quotation start:] "Councillor Tom Aditya (born 14th April) is a British community campaigner and management consultant, currently serving as the Deputy Mayor of Bradley Stoke, Bristol and the Vice-Chairman of the Avon and Somerset Police Panel, which covers Bristol City, South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset, Taunton Deane, West Somerset, South Somerset, Sedgemoor and Mendips districts. He is the first person of Asian origin to be elected in South Gloucestershire County and the first South Indian elected on Conservative party ticket in the UK. He is also a trustee of Bristol Multi Faith Forum , which builds fruitful and constructive relationships amongst faith communities. Tom Aditya is also a columnist and speaker as well as an exponent in political science, academics and technology." [quotation end.]

Since I was just wikignoming and re-categorizing Kerala-related wikis, started Talk:Tom Aditya on 31 August 2017; and its main contributor @Amaljyothi1: stated, that [quotation start] "...Since he is considered as one of the Ambassadors of Kerala in the UK, it is proper for him to be included in the People from Kerala category. Moreover, since he is working amongst the various faith communities in the UK, it is right to classify him as an Indian Christian too rather than just the 'Saint Thomas Christian' tag... [quotation end.] Therefore I started this DR to verify the wiki's notability and relevance by more experienced Wikipedians than me (my first and hopefully last DR). Thank you for your opinions, Roland zh (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Roland zh (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC) [precised Roland zh (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk: Derek R Bullamore and User_talk: CAPTAIN RAJU: I am not a professional wikipeadia writer. I am only learning it. If there are any mistakes, please correct me. I wrote the article ===Tom Aditya=== based on the facts available online. Tom Aditya has been well known in the Indian community in the UK, especially amongst the British South Indians. There had been articles by prominent Indian national newspapers in Malayalam language about this person. He received significant press coverage from independent sources and is a notable person. Hence request to please help to edit the article. Thank you User_talk: Amaljyothi1

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being well-known in a particular ethnic community is not a Wikipedia inclusion criterion per se — it's not clearly quantifiable how well-known somebody is or isn't in most cases, but rather "well-known" is a vague claim that's open to abuse and hype-inflation. So we judge notability not on the basis of the general claim to being well-known, but on the basis of specific things that the person has done, specific roles that they've held, specific analysis of the specific sources brought to bear, and on and so forth. And on that basis, what's here isn't adequate at all: the article is entirely too dependent on primary sources and routine local coverage in a local WordPress blog, with not even close to enough genuine reliable source coverage shown at all. And nothing claimed in the article is an automatic notability freebie that would exempt him from having to show more reliable source coverage than this, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat (talk), I understand your opinion. However, let me clarify few things which you mentioned. Yes, I have quoted a local newspaper for few of the local matters, but have also quoted from Malayala Manorama (www.manoramaonline.com) which has circulation of more than 2.5 million printed circulation and is one of the largest newspapers in India and www.deepika.com, a newspaper established in the 1887. They are not primary sources but independent third party sources which are many years old. As I mentioned earlier, since I am not a professional wikipeadia writer, there can be mistakes. Hence please correct me. I wrote the article ===Tom Aditya=== based on the facts available online. Hence request to please help to edit the article. Thank you User_talk: Amaljyothi1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Keep. Please discuss on the article talk page whether the albums should be merged with the artist or vice versa, or whether they can both have articles. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Deyo[edit]

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

Source searches are not providing qualification for an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being the lead singer of Sonicflood is a significant thing; some sources and text they could support below. More sources visible in proquest news archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source I found, a feature/profile (^[1]) Feel free to add it to article. More sources are out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deyo was born in Minnesota. He left Sonicflood in 2000. He is the married father of four children. He works as a studio arts professor.^[2]

"Deyo, who was named one of Radio & Records magazine's Top 10 Breaththrough Artists of the Year in 2002." He lived in Nashville as of 2003.^[3]

Dayo became the "lead worshiper" in the Jeff Dayo Band.^[4]

His faculty bio at North Central University can also be used to source basic bio, and should be added to "external links".E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dunn, Patrick (2 June 2006). "Singer brings message to festival of worship". Albequerque Journal. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
^ Brown, Matt Hew (1 March 2004). "Ex-Sonicflood member to lead worship at Lifepoint Church". Northwest Florida Daily News.
^ Deck, Carole (1 June 2003). "Jeff Deyo ministers with music". Sunday News (Lancaster, Pa.). Retrieved 22 August 2017.
^ Ritzel, Rebecca (22 November 2002). "Lancaster Bible Church hosts 'Holy Ghost party'; Crowd gathers to hear Deyo Band, Goss perform". Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, Pa.). Retrieved 22 August 2017.

Speedy Keep - it's hard to imagine how having three album articles does not mean the subject is notable. WP:NOTINHERITED applied the other way around: an album is not immediately notable just because the subject has an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please revisit both WP:Speedy keep & WP:GNG. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Redirect to Sonicflood. Having articles about albums doesn't necessarily make one notable and I'd likely support deleting them if they get nominated. SonicFlood is notable, but I don't see Deyo being that notable on his own. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sonicflood as target for a redirect. Reason is that while Sonicflood broke up within 2 years of Deyo's departure. Deyo formed a new band that toured and got press coverage, including at least some (looked minor) press coverage for the albums. My suggestion is that the post-Sonicflood albums be redirectted to this article, while this article continues to be linked from Sonicflood.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you want to unbold your response so it doesn't look like another !vote. Since SonicFlood charted on their own, I don't see why they'd be a redirect. They pass WP:NBAND Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, But As I understand it, No one is proposing to redirect Sonicflood. Niteshift36 proposed to redirect Jeff Deyo to Soniclflood.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, in this case, case. Deyo's main notability comes from his association with Sonicflood. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting, double-checking myself I ran a gNews search and immediately hit upon in Christianity Today, datelne 2014: "The age of worship rock that started with Jeff Deyo turning In The Secret (I Want to Know You) into a power-pop song in 1999 has officially ended—and it's about time. That sound stayed around far too long."[86]. Perhaps that's why he took a teaching job, but he really does look WP notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep it or don't keep it, I don't care — but this is an unsourced BLP as it stands, so there needs to be a reference added, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sonicflood, per WP:ATD-R. The subject is nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. E.M.Gregory has found few sources which give a passing mention of the subject. But we need in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources for a standalone BLP. We could've merged few relevant bits to Sonicflood, but the BLP is unsourced. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. The sources I list above are not mere "passing mentions," additions WP:SIGCOV includes:

Interview With Jeff Deyo, 11 July 2013, [87].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC) - This ran in http://worshipleader.com/[reply]
Jeff Deyo: The one time lead singer of Sonicflood reaching saturation point , 1 July 2002, [88].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

This ran in a Cross Rhythms (magazine) or Cross Rhythms website.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – These two interviews of the subject were published in the sources of online communities. One of them is a charity which promotes Christian Music and the other one is an online community. Sometimes these sort of sources can be used to add non-controversial info in BLPs, provided there is editorial oversight. But they can never be used to prove notability. As already stated, he is known for Sonicflood, and his relevant details are already covered in that article's history section. At best few other relevant sentences might be added there. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A charity is an NGO, and many of them have publications. Granted worshipleader.com [89] is a small organization, but, in principal, it is in the same category as all other non-for-profits. The other article ran online in Cross Rhythms (magazine) or Cross Rhythms or one of the other affiliates within Category:Cross Rhythms, a rather large outfit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs aside, Worship Leader takes user submitted articles and appears to lack editorial oversight. That will pretty much remove it from bein a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, these religion-promoting sites are blatant violation of one of WP's three core content policies – WP:NPOV. That's why these types of sites/charities/NGOs aren't considered as reliable enough to add encyclopedic content in BLPs, let alone proving their notability. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As an unsourced BLP. Ping me if this gets fixed, but this is a deletionworthy state of affairs. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant since sources exist and have been brought ot this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources brought to this discussion above include profile articles in the Sunday News (Lancaster) and Albuquerque Journal, and other sources that, taken together, suffice to establish notability and flesh out an WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
note that this article was created in 2007, which was just after Deyo's fairly brief career as a performer wound down and he segued to full-time college music prof who does gigs as a worship leader. It has been edited by dozens of editors over the years. My proposal, above, is that it be kept and the article on his album redirected here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article can be sourced to CBN: [90].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated above, these religion-promoting sites are blatant violation of WP:NPOV. I mean you have to just read its mission statement. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The overwhelming majority of non-for-profit organizations are POV promoters of one ideology or another. As are most mainstream media. Neither the Wall Street Journal nor The Guardian makes the least pretense of being ideologically neutral, but both are regarded as WP:RS, as is Christian Broadcasting Network, which promotes Christianity. Audubon (magazine) is for the birds. Rolling Stone takes an anti-George Frideric Handel POV. With media, the quesiton is how reliable is the source, not is it POV. With small professional outfits like Worship Leader, or, indeed with any non-profit, the question is how significant and how reputable a non-profit org is, not whether it takes a NPOV. Even small, specialized outfits like Worship Leader contribute their mite to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get my point at all. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I just closed the link after reading its first line. But today I read the remaining interview. It's a promo of his upcoming (non-notable) album Unveil, which was released in 2007, according to the above unsourced BLP. So, just to be clear, this source isn't even discussing him. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to be ignoring the WP:SIGCOV in the Sunday News (Lancaster) and Albuquerque Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ignored anything. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonicflood; not independently notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No significant accomplishments in the non-music career either. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the assertion by NitinMlk above, sources such as CBN are valid, independent sources for supporting notability of a recording artist when they publish material such as this detailed, longish: [91] review of the post-Sonicflood Jeff Dayo album Unveil. The fact that Deyo is Christian and the network is Christian does not invalidate it as a source any more than a review in Hip Hop Weekly is invalid as a source supporting the notability of a Hip Hop musician. Forgive me, I know that patience is a Christian virtue, but there is tendency on the part of some non-religious editors to lose all sense of perspective when confronted with articles about Gospel musicians. I continue to feel that the many sources I have adduced above more than suffice to support the notability of this minor performer/recording artist/worship leader whose career peaked ~2000 and notability included, but was not limited to, the band Sonicflood which was a bit of a big deal at the time. We all need to try harder to assess articles notability objectively.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated, it was a promo of his album. So, it cannot be used to prove his notability. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that CBN likes the album, the singer, and the idea of singers recording this type of song, BCBN is an WP:INDEPENDENT source, a broadcast network publishing an article about a new album.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This and several sources mentioned earlier in this discussion are sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinza Hashmi[edit]

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

seems to have minor roles in TV programmes . fails to meet WP:ACTORS. Saqib (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Wikipedia doesn't see minor roles when there are significant coverage of sources (like this. I have found many sources regarding her talent, skills, well-known personality, and I don't think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahabAliwadia (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SahabAliwadia: Please cite the sources which can demonstrate and establish the notability of the subject. Merely being in the news doesn't qualify one to merit an entry on Wikipedia. We have criteria for actors at WP:ACTORS which the subject need to meet in order to get a standalone bio page. We don't usually have bios on any other actors, having minor roles in TV programmes. --Saqib (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per Saqib. SahabAli wadia 10:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 04:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1 non-blocked editor has participated in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Greenbörg (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Body and Blood of Christ and disambiguate. There is a clear consensus that this article should not exist as it stands, and substantial support for a disambiguation page existing at the target page. The question of whether Blessed Sacrament and Eucharist should be merged deserves its own discussion separate from this. bd2412 T 14:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Body and Blood of Christ[edit]

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

Can anyone make sense of this article? Adam9007 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To answer the question of the nominator, no I can't. I'd suggest a redirect (it could possibly be a plausible search term), but there are too many possible options there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Transubstantiation~~, which comprehensively describes what this article was trying to get at. Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote! to Delete and disambiguate Everyone has made good points here about where it should go, and I agree it shouldn't be limited to one church's meaning by any means, so I would agree on it listing multiple options for the phrase. Nate • (chatter) 10:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transubstantiation per Nate. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think in the strictest sense that transubstantiation is still the best target, but it's probably best to redirect to Body and Blood of Christ and have a DAB/BCA there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transubstantiation per Nate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am neutral as to what should be done with this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~Delete and make a disambiguation page Updating my !vote to reflect new information from other !votes. to consubstantiation or transubstantiation. The whole debate centres around whether the communion literally transforms into the body and blood of Christ, as believed by Catholics, or whether the process is merely symbolic, as Protestants believe. Either way, a redirect to Eucharist would be the very minimum. DrStrauss talk 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eucharist. The literal belief is held by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox as well, and the transubstantiation article is mainly about the Latin theology (it does have some Eastern theology, but not enough where I think it is a good target for this redirect). Some Protestant groups also use the terminology in their liturgies even if they hold a view of it as a memorial. Transubstantiation is simply too Latin Church focused for a topic that is central to Christianity as a whole. Pinging @BigHaz, Mrschimpf, Patar knight, Metropolitan90, and DrStrauss: to see their views on this alternate target. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems good to me. DrStrauss talk 16:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a note, I've notified WikiProject Christianity, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy since this is probably one of the more significant redirect discussion targets given its central significance to every branch of the world's largest religion. If someone thinks there are additional WikiProjects that should be notified, please feel free to do so. For what its worth Body and Blood of Christ redirects to Blessed Sacrament. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection in principle to a redirect if there's consensus as to exactly where. The disambiguation suggestions below seem like a better option, frankly, as they cover for more eventualities. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eucharist, if anything. Transubstantiation would be a very pov redirect as it is a particular view regarding the topic. Many Protestants believe the Eucharist to be a partaking of his body and blood without believing in transubstantiation. --JFH (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eucharist, or one of the others. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and disambiguate There's no reason to have redirects at both Body and Blood of Christ and The Body and Blood of Christ, much less redirects to different targets. Suggestion: Body and Blood of Christ should be changed to the style Body and Blood of Christ may refer to.... with a few bullets to Anaphora (liturgy), Blessed Sacrament, 5 or 6 articles beginning with Eucharist, Transubstantiation, etc. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then disambiguate All of the above suggestions have merit, but I think the most recent one, a disambiguation page linking to many of the other options listed above, is the most equitable and NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jclemens, I'd be open to the disambiguation option, but I think the deletion makes little sense here for one reason: the phrase The Body and Blood of Christ in that exact syntax is used in many Christian liturgical traditions during the act of receiving communion, making the use of the definite article here a likely search term. Disambiguating Body of Christ I like a lot, and then keeping this as a redirect pointing to it could be useful. I respect your thoughts on these matters, so if you have a specific reason for deleting the redirect I'd be interested in hearing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - TonyBallioni Sorry if I was unclear--by delete, I mean that there is no need to preserve the current content in any way. Ultimately, one of The Body and Blood of Christ and Body and Blood of Christ should be a disambiguation, and the other a redirect to the disambiguation. Does that clarify sufficiently? Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. That makes sense. I've struck my !vote above, and added a delete !vote below here. I concur with your reasoning. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and disambiguate, with the understanding that there is no prejudice against the recreation of a redirect to the disambiguatin page after the current page history is removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and disambiguate Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and disambiguate Agree with Bmclaughlin9's earlier point. Summoned here by a notice in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eucharist There is no need for disambiguation because all the other targets are subtopics of the eucharist; it makes little sense to make a disambiguation page that (badly) reproduces the section on various theories about how it "works". Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blessed Sacrament, which is "a devotional name used in the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, as well as in Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, and the Old Catholic Church, as well as in some of the Eastern Catholic Churches, to refer to the body and blood of Christ in the form of consecrated sacramental bread and wine at a celebration of the Eucharist." Per TonyBallioni, Body and Blood of Christ already directs there. Scolaire (talk)
Redirect probably to Eucharist or Lord's Supper. Blessed Sacrament is primarily a Catholic term. I believe that Catholic doctrine has five or even seven sacraments, all of which are presumably "blessed". The present content of the article is about the resurrection, not any sacrament, so that there is nothing to merge. If there is some other potential target, I would not object to making it a disambiguation page, but it may be that a redirects here capnote will be sufficient to deal with that. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lord's Supper is currently a redirect to Eucharist. Body and Blood of Christ redirects to Blessed Sacrament, which is a free-sanding article, which appears to be duplicating Eucharist: should they be merged? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge. I still think the suggested disambiguation page at Body and Blood of Christ is ideal.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creepiness[edit]

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

Article is written as a humor article, also WP:NAD PureRED | talk to me | 16:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: After reviewing lots of other similar articles on WP, I do feel that this page has its place. In first few days or so it was still a "delete" in my mind; however, as it stands now, I see its value. Per WP:WDAFD, as there are dissenting views on the topic, this discussion has to stay open until reviewed by an admin. Thank you for your feedback everyone, I appreciate it. PureRED | talk to me | 21:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing encyclopedic about the article or the topic. The article defines a word and gives subjective, arbitrary examples of its use. Indeed, WP:NAD. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Largoplazo.Naraht (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an article. Artw (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or merge any salvageable part in Technophobia, Phobia, Fear or Mobile phone tracking. Appears to be a list of trivia. —Paleo Neonate – 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article has been expanded and the topic is clearly notable. The reference to the internet being described as increasingly creepy should be removed from the lede as it's a piece of trivia and presumably the reason why the article was misunderstood by one participant to be humorous. WP:NAD is all very fine but I don't see how it applies here: the article is not about the word, it's about the concept of creepiness, and that's clearly shown in the newly added sources, like this one [92]. – Uanfala 23:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 23:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too broad, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. South Nashua (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it exists solely for someone to hype their study. Plus, it started a domino effect when the editor who created it misused redirect, pushing people from the long-stable magazine article Creepy to here, even though "Creepy" and "Creepiness" are two different words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 2:17, August 31, 2017 UTC (UTC)

For the record, I am completely unaffiliated with the study mentioned in the article, its authors, or Knox College.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly transwikify to wiktionary per concerns over WP:NAD. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If not already in the dictionary, I fully agree that it should be there. —Paleo Neonate – 02:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, article needs some work for sure but the subject clearly notable. It is not longer just a three sentence dictionary defintion stub so the first four or so editors in this article should consider recasting their votes. --Prisencolin (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable phenomenon in the same vein as cuteness. Of course it's not going to look like an article when you nominate it for deletion less than 20 minutes after creation. It's a new article, give the editors time to work on it. Sro23 (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It's been a day and the article essentially looks the way it did when it was created. If you don't want to run the risk of having your article being scratched, use draftspace until its ready, or at least be able to prove the topic's significance. Sorry you disagree. PureRED | talk to me | 13:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems like a broad-as-a-barn, flimsy, dictionary-esque article. It seems to be confused whether it wants to be an article or an essay. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 07:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable as there's an entire book about it and numerous academic papers including:

Leakiness and creepiness in app space
The cost of creepiness: How online behavioral advertising affects consumer purchase intention
On the nature of creepiness
Antecedents and Outcomes of Perceived Creepiness in Online Personalized Communications
How we decide who's creepy
Defining Creepiness
An examination of intuitive judgements of “creepiness”.
On the eeriness of service robots with emotional capabilities
A theory of creepy: technology, privacy and shifting social norms

So, the hasty nomination clearly fails WP:BEFORE and WP:BITE. The reference to WP:NAD is the common error of supposing that a short stub is a dictionary entry. As that policy says, this is a "perennial source of confusion" and so it is not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Prisencolin has some 40,000 edits--so I can very safely say that WP:BITE does not apply here. I do appreciate the input here, particularly on the WP:NAD topic. --PureRED | talk to me | 21:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolin's user page states that they are ((semi-retired)), "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia." In this case, the new article was prodded just two minutes after it was created and then this nomination was made just a few minutes later. Will this encourage them to continue contributing or will it cause them to fully retire? Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your long reach there, you might knock something over. PureRED | talk to me | 00:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article is easily expandable as a sociological issue. Google scholar gives 50,000 search returns on this topic. This high number doesn't surprise me at all given the large amount of social settings wherein creepiness is often attributable. One of the reasons this topic is also important is it touches upon some uncomfortable double standards in our society. For instance women are seldom and very rarely desribed as "creepy" It is almost entirely a male attribute. It is the duty of an encyclopedia, especially the largest encyclopedia in the world to touch upon a glaring phenomenon in society. All the more so because the term "creepy" is often used in a vague setting thus making the subject of the accusation feel the transgression is obscure. 79.67.72.116 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's function or "duty" to expose what should be exposed. As for Google Scholar, the provided search yields 2400 hits. The hits with significant citation counts relate to online privacy and "leakiness." One states how the psychological concept is so little explored. Not much to support a supposedly notable topic. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, when I click the Google Scholar link above, or run the query directly, I get only 2,400 hits, not 50,000. Further, for the search term "bollocks", I get 7,380 hits; for "bodacious", I get 2,530; for "chortle", I get 4,970; for "sometimes", over 5 million; for "maybe", over 2 million. I submit that the number of documents in Google Scholar that happen to contain a given word isn't a measure of whether the word denotes an encyclopedic topic or a topic that is a frequent object of study, and isn't an indication of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bollocks; bodacious; chortle; sometimes and maybe are all blue links not red links. Just about any word which is used a lot should lead to a page on Wikipedia because we're an encyclopedia and so cover just about everything. Andrew D. (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the article never moves fully beyond being a dictionary definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Defined and discussed in reliably scholarly work ([93]). Given the popularity of the term and its general usage, a notable concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has received significant coverage in scholarly sources. See Google Scholar results for examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Encyclopedia articles should be about nouns, not adjectives. Dictionary definition and trivia junk drawer, with illustrations. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Creepiness" is a noun. Largoplazo (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing earlier !vote to weak keep. Google Scholar does give the impression that the subject has been as a phenomenon by multiple studies. But the article needs work. At the moment, it's a definition, a mention of one study, and mentions of a couple of places where the word "creepy" has been used. It needs more coverage of the phenomenon, relating what the studies have to say about it. And it should exclude trivia about where people have remarked that something or other is creepy. The article should be about the subject that the word "creepiness" refers to, not about the word itself. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reasonable topic for an article. As several people have pointed out, there is even significant academic research on this subject. Articles should be deleted if they have no potential, not if they are inadequate in the few days after their creation. Wait a month or two and nominate again if there is no improvement. Zero^talk 01:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly reasonable subject, plentiful sources, and per Category:Emotions Category:Feeling why wouldn't this feeling be notable when dozens of others are? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per the many sources identified above. I get the impression that there is a prejudice among many Wikipedia editors against articles about common concepts rather than about subjects identified by proper names. That has no basis in either Wikpedia policy or common sense about what belongs in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've noticed this prejudice too and I've thought it might be due to the higher proportion of people on the autism spectrum among the regular editors. – Uanfala 07:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This comment about prejudice has an air of a different kind of prejudice in it. I don't think you meant it that way, but that's the way it comes across. PureRED | talk to me | 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooops, you're right. That was just an impulsive thought: I am on the fuzzy edge of the spectrum and I've often felt the pull of the concrete and the neatly classifiable. And as for there being a higher proportion of people with autism here, there's an essay about it: WP:AUTIST. – Uanfala 15:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I just realise that my first comment could be taken as referring to individual editors in the discussion. But it isn't. I find it impossible to tell whether someone is on the spectrum or not based on their editing. – Uanfala 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries at all! It's definitely an interesting topic though. I think we get so set into our way of doing things in a sea of a million ways to do things, and we all refuse to budge. That's partly why I decided to withdraw the nomination; it definitely helps to be flexible. PureRED | talk to me | 15:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about policy, but an alternative would be to merge with Uncanny, which seems to be pretty much the same thing. PopSci (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that these are the same concept appears to me to be pretty uncanny, but not at all creepy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Monk Who Became Chief Minister[edit]

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

Does not meet notability : reference points to amazon, flipkart and the other links does not portray any notability, the only link which it mentions is link from the publisher of the book Shrikanthv (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont feel it lacks notability. It has links from Hindustan Times, Bloomsbury, India.com, Business Standard, The week, The pioneer, Indian Express, United News of India etc. The book would be launching on 25th August, hence we can expect more reference links to inflow with time.Royaal (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRYSTAL Spiderone 10:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep appears to be enough coverage for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any firm consensus one way on the other with this - indeed, it is fairly typical for list articles of this type to close in this manner. Indeed, WP:NOTESAL states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario[edit]

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

Unnecessary and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of all educational institutions -- primary, secondary and post-secondary -- located in one particular district of a city. We don't, and shouldn't, have comparable lists for ~~Etobicoke or~~ North York or East York or the Core, and there's no discernible reason why Scarborough should get special treatment. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Etobicoke has existed for over three years. These seem to be tracking parent categories (i.e., indexing the articles in) Category:Education in Scarborough, Toronto and Category:Education in Etobicoke. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but the Etobicoke list certainly didn't turn up when I looked for one to see if there were any comparables or not. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a surprisingly long list of schools to be located in one "neighborhood" of Toronto. Hmm, it seems Scarborough, Toronto is a former city, itself. This could easily be suitable for a section on Education in its article....hmm, Scarborough, Toronto#Education exists as a section, and this list was apparently split out of there for being too long. Hmm, I don't really want to second-guess the decision to split it out, because it is a big chunk of perfectly valid material that seems perhaps too long to keep in the Scarborough article. An alternative to keeping which could perhaps be acceptable would be to force "merge" it back in, but why do that? Would the deletion nominator prefer that it be renamed somehow? I am sure that Education sections in other cities must have been split out too, e.g. List of Baltimore City Public Schools and others in Category:Education's subcategories by geography. --do ncr am 21:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a former city is irrelevant to whether a standalone list of every individual school in it is necessary or not — it's not a current city, which is what matters. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If these divisions don't make sense for this purpose, the categories should be listed at CFD to be upmerged as well. I suspect all of the included articles are already in more specific categories, such as Category:High schools in Toronto. postdlf (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to express an opinion on keeping or deleting here, but I do want to comment on the point about being a former vs current city. WP:NTEMP argues that the current status doesn't matter. If Scarborough were still a city, would you then be arguing to keep? If so, then arguing to delete just because it's no longer a city seems inconsistent with WP:NTEMP. On the other hand Category:Education in Scarborough, Toronto would seem to cover this adequately, just like Category:Schools in the Bronx, Category:Schools in Brooklyn, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not longer a city. It's also no longer a borough, or a township. Was it a town at one point? What it is now, rather than being a township of York county, is a district of the City of Toronto - boundaries unchanged. And it still has a community council, currently with ten wards, and ten councillors who meeting almost monthly. See here. Nfitz (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no policy or guideline anywhere saying that "Education" cannot be discussed in an article about a place, despite the place being included in some other larger place. Scarborough is apparently a populated place of 625,000 persons in 2011 and it seems especially appropriate to have some coverage about Education in a place of that size. This AFD seems to be about content of the Scarborough article, in effect, as the list-article appears to have been split out from it in 2008. There was then immediately some back and forth about text about two private high schools which both claimed to be the oldest in Scarborough (text was moved from the split-out article to the Education section in the Scarborough article, where it remains). Actually, it seems to me that the list-article would better be framed as the "main" article, and include everything in the Education section of the Scarborough article plus more so that the section is a summary, and then use a template:main link from the Education article rather than a "see also" link. I have given notice of this AFD just now at the Talk page of the Scarborough article. --do ncr am 17:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is particularly notable about education in Scarborough specifically, to have an "Education in Scarborough" article? Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that it be especially special education there. It's a matter of size of the Scarborough article. There is no rule limiting size of what can be covered, and some editors have chosen to cover a lot about education/schools there, and then it is reasonable to split it out. --do ncr am 04:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it's just a list. You could have a list in the Scarborough article to the schools that do have articles. The rest of the list is of no value to an encyclopedia. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the editors in and around Toronto need to consider how (or whether) to list all schools in the city. There ought to be some consistency across the former municipalities that I don't see - for example I found nothing for East York, and "List of educational institutions in Toronto" redirects to Education in Toronto. Keeping and maintaining a list of elementary schools is a big task that I wouldn't recommend - in my opinion maintaining a list of secondary-level schools and higher is reasonable. I'm leaning towards a 'delete' vote for the list in question, but I don't feel strongly enough to provide more than this comment. PK T(alk) 18:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, PKT has a good point. I think probably the better approach is to have lists by school district, in school district articles which would not be questioned, at least for public schools. What are the facts about school districts, is there one huge Toronto School District? Is there a separate school district for Scarborough? The Scarborough article could state simply that education is covered by schools in School District X and School District Y, and then there'd be no need for public schools to be covered in a separate Education article. If a bunch of the private schools are part of, say, a Catholic archdiocese, those ones might be consolidated there. --do ncr am 01:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, many/most of the listed schools could be listed instead in what seem to be the "District" articles:

Toronto District School Board
Toronto Catholic District School Board, the English-language Catholic school board that also operates in Toronto
Conseil scolaire Viamonde, the French-language school board that also operates in Toronto
Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, the French-language Catholic school board in Toronto

I am really not familiar with how all the institutes work, what they are part of, but if a Canadian would take on the task of merging the lists of schools to the relevant district articles, that could be a good resolution here (essentially "Merge"). Can anyone do that? --do ncr am 01:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't immediately see a list of the Toronto District School Board schools, but i do find List of schools in the Toronto Catholic District School Board, which presents just a bare list without indicating addresses or neighborhoods or anything else about its named schools. Perhaps "located in Scarborough" could be added where appropriate. The need for a separate "Education" article for Scarborough is eliminated if Scarborough location is noted for all these. --do ncr am 01:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on Toronto District School Board (TDSB) and Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB)'s borders both align with the new(ish) City of Toronto but CSV (French public board) is an amalgamation of 6 old boards - only one (CEFCUT) was in Toronto; the other 5 cover the entire Southwestern Ontario, Niagara Peninsula, Hamilton, the rest of the GTA outside of Toronto, and a surprising chunk of Central Ontario. The French Catholic Board (CSDCCS) is a bit more limited, but still covers most of the entire Golden Horseshoe and some of the surrounding counties. I don't know what the solution is, but combining all the boards together makes no geographical sense, or else we'll end up with simply an article for the entire Southern Ontario. Nfitz (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate User:Nfitz to fix the situation! The main editing needed, as far as I can tell, is to modify several school district articles to be sure they list their Scarborough-located schools (and identify them as being in Scarborough). The school district articles are fine (they certainly should not be merged) and can include partial or complete lists of their schools. Then the educational institutions in Scarborough article can be merged back into the Scarborough article, which should just include summary mentions such as (these are made up numbers) "Scarborough has 8 primary schools and 3 middle schools and 2 high schools in the Toronto Catholic School District", etc. Please someone close this with affirmation of Nfitz's task assignment, before they can decline! --do ncr am 21:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz mentioned elsewhere that they in fact do not agree with my suggestion, which is okay. Having to do in part with fact that Scarborough has continuing coherence/recognition, while other former towns/cities merged into Toronto do not, but I may not have understood. This topic is beyond my ken, really, and I won't comment further. Good luck in closing this, whomever. --do ncr am 18:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 293[edit]

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

No source, fails WP:V Roxy the dog. bark 09:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. it seems to have a source. [94], and is perfectly usable. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Even the original version of the article was sourced with a top reliable reference (although badly formatted), showing that the nominator did neither attempt to do his homework (per WP:BEFORE) before nominating the article for deletion, nor made any (even trivial) attempts to improve the article (by formatting the given source correctly) as would have been his duty before nominating the article for deletion. If the nominator really was uncapable of identifying or reformatting the given source himself, he could have asked for sources via our established article improvement procedures instead of asking for deletion. This has been explained to the nominator several times already, therefore this must be seen as unconstructive behaviour.

In general, character sets of mass-produced computers and devices as well as those of significant solitaire machines (like those of the mainframe era) are important encyclopedic information, expected by readers to be provided by Wikipedia. They are highly sought after by computer historians, computer forensics, retro-computer users, and developers seeking for info on how to exchange and convert data and programs to/from modern systems. We therefore have a long-time project documenting character sets here at Wikipedia to achieve our goal of becoming a reliable reference for the knowledge of the world, past and present.

A codepage used by IBM mainframes and by APL is obviously notable.

The article fulfills our notability criteria (per WP:N) and is verified (per WP:V). But even if it wouldn't, WP:NPOSSIBLE would have applied, so the nomination is bogus. The nominator is wasting the time and energy of contributing editors.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addon information in regard to significance: I just looked it up, the APL codepages 293 and 907 are both supported by OS/2 Warp 3 (at least Fixpak 40 and higher, possibly earlier) as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. I can't tell whether this was actually used at all. There is no reason for an encyclopedia to transcribe the entire DOS Manual. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is a codepage used by IBM mainframes and by APL, not by MS-DOS. You can be absolutely sure that codepages listed in IBM's CDRA were (or are) used, because they registered only codepages used by large corporations.

There are many more character sets in existance, some of them important, others not, but those registered by IBM and carrying a codepage number were (or are) without any doubt significant, otherwise they wouldn't have made it into the registry. That's why I wrote that the given reference is a top quality reference.

In general, our goal here in Wikipedia is to eventually become a top-reliable reference preserving and presenting the knowledge of the world, past and present, in encyclopedic form. Character sets are encyclopedic relevant information (unless they were/are for some unknown or home-brew machine or only used in a closed system with no interface to the outside world, so that there is nothing externally that had or has a need to interact with them). Character sets are also explained in other encyclopedias.

Unless we would start to document all (several thousand!) character sets ever in existance (which we are not trying to do) there is no risk to become an indiscriminate collection of data.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to APL (codepage), where it is mentioned. As far as I can tell, code page 293 is an important version of an APL code. Codepages are unusually important for APL, a language with custom symbols and codes. Having all the APL codepage content under one article better serves our readers, and APL (codepage) is the better developed article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles covering multiple character sets (like f.e. HP Roman) are about sets of similarly arranged characters, whereas in this case the resulting article would have to discuss a number of vastly different EBCDIC and ASCII based arrangements, but I agree that discussing them all in one place might have some value in itself. However, IMO it only makes sense if we'd merge all APL-related character sets into a single article, including codepage 293, codepage 907, IR-68 and a few more that exist, and if we'd do it without deleting information. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or take the big redlink eraser to about 50% of the "Character encodings" navbox (see e.g. APL (codepage). I can't make out why this one would be regarded as less notable than the rest of its ilk, and the given source is indisputably valid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Matthias. Do these sets count as lists? L3X1 (distænt write) 13:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm really conflicted here. On the one hand, I doubt this meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, the basic concept of different character sets and/or codepages is clearly an important topic. It's also useful to archive information about all of these historical codepages somewhere. The question is whether wikipedia is the right place. I don't have a good answer for that. If there were some other stable/durable place where this information was archived, then I'd say we don't need it. But, I don't know of such a place (codepageapedia, anyone?). Given that no better archive exists, I think it's reasonable to bend our rules a bit and say keep it here. I'd also like to see a general policy statement emerge, rather than having this same debate over and over for each individual example. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Air Force Specialty Code. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2M0X1[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This employment specialty, "Missile and Space Systems Electrical Maintenance", is a subcategory of "Missile and Space Systems Maintenance". The latter is described at length in internal documents [95] and recruiting literature [96] [97] [98] published by the U.S. Air Force, but these do not qualify as "independent" under WP:GNG. The only independent source I can find is a Rand Corporation publication on the future of the Air Force, which lists the specialties within the latter category and briefly describes some proposed cuts in this sector [99]. Since this source is primary and doesn't give broader contextualization, I don't think it is "in-depth" enough to allow us to write an encyclopedic article more useful than the listing of these specialties under Air_Force_Specialty_Code#Maintenance_and_logistics. My opinion could be changed to a merge to Missile and Space Systems Maintenance if someone found, for example, a page or two in a military history book describing the emergence of this specialty and the historical importance of its contributions. FourViolas (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some sources - [100][101] [102] table mentions:[103] [104]Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air Force Specialty Code. There doesn't seem to be enough WP:SIGNIFICANT and WP:INDEPENDENT coverage to create a separate article for each of these codes. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Air Force Specialty Code per Kvng. If we have more 2M0X1s then we'll disambig, but this really fits better (given relative little coverage on the one hand, and the close relatedness to other codes (the whole 2M branch - 2M0X2, 2M0X3). If significant sourcing emerges for a particular specialty - then perhaps it would merit a separate article - but as it is we've just got a copy-paste of the job description.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air Force Specialty Code. I agree there is not enough coverage to make this a stand-alone topic. I think redirect is the best option per User:Icewhiz .Steve Quinn (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adda52[edit]

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

As far as references, I am finding that most are coming from blogs, poker websites, or other unreliable sources. The rest are routine announcements or brief mentions. Also related to AfD for Adda52rummy. According to one announcement, it is now owned by Delta Corp Limited which could be a viable redirect. Currently, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this probably should be bundled with the Adda52rummy AfD before this is voted on. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - User:CNMall41 has said " I am finding that most are coming from blogs, poker websites, or other unreliable sources.". I would like to clarify that there are 20 references given in the list.

A) Ref. 1 to 4, 19 are poker news website(but independent sources, those websites is not run by Adda52)
B) Ref. 5 - Scroll.in, Ref. 6 - vccircle.in, Ref. 8 - Indiatimes, Ref. 9 - Catchnews, Ref. 10 - Indiatimes Ref. 11 - Business standard, Ref. 12 - The Hindu Business line, Ref. 13 - The HansInida, Ref. 17 - Zee news India, Ref. 18 -Siasat, Ref. 20 - livemint news
C) 2 references from primary sources & 1 reference from others (But not just blog).
Now, please clarify me which are blogs & other unreliable sources. In (B), You can see many reliable reputed news sources. If I am wrong, please clarify.
According to Wikipedia guidelines, complete notability criteria is met by this subject. If not, Please explain. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You only addressed half of my comment. I also said that the rest are routine announcements and brief mentions. If you feel that these references establish notability, please state which reference is from a reliable source and establishes WP:CORPDEPTH. I went through them all and cannot find one. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:CNMall41, I really would like to know. Could you please direct me to any of Wikipedia article about a company and the references which broadly talk about those companies. So, I will somehow understand what exactly mean 'core mentioning'. kindly show me few Wiki articles about companies and those references. So, at least I correct myself. It will be great from you. Thank youUyarafath (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showing you other articles is pointless as we are not discussing other articles - which also would lead down the path to WP:OSE. We are discussing this article and you would need to address why you feel it meets notability guidelines - as I have addressed why I feel it does not. The relevant guideline for you to look at is WP:CORPDEPTH which has been pointed out to you already on this and other AfD discussions. If you can show how the references meet WP:CORPDEPTH and the topic meets WP:GNG, I will gladly request the withdraw of my delete nomination.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. FITINDIA 09:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep there's a lot of low-quality press-release coverage (both poker and business [105]). Things like [106] suggest it's probably enough. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete / merge to Online poker. There is some coverage, but niche and unreliable, a lot of it seems like rewritten press release. This has major issues with WP:CORSPAM. I do think the company could be mention in (to be created) 'online poker in India' section in Online poker, which could discuss the poker market and list major companies around the world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM and WP:N. Oppose merging of the content because it is largely promotional. Recent changes to WP:ORGIND mean that there is no policy basis for counting all of the low-quality press release coverage as cited above for a reason to weak keep it. They are excluded by our guidelines as counting towards notability. I wouldn't object to a redirect after the article has been deleted, but there is nothing in its history worth maintaining. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roll-your-own cigarette. So Why 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roll your own[edit]

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

Untouched since 2009. Deprodded with addition of a single source which does not appear reliable. Fails WP:HOWTO and WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source is plainly reliable as the most authoritative card game website in existence. I first went to redirect the article to Glossary of poker terms, like many such other specialized terms, but the article is too long to keep the rather long amount of words needed to full explain the definition, so keeping the article is a better solution. Simply deleting the article is aggressively user-unfriendly, and would unnecessarily lead to content forks whenever the term needed to be used in articles, so best to keep the article and next best to redirect it. 2005 (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2005: The content on pagat.com appears to be entirely user submitted, meaning that it is not a reliable source. If there are no reliable sources, then the article should be redirected or deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but whatever, there are hundreds of references to the site in the Wikipedia because it the most authoritative source on card games in the world, and referenced in many books, journals and library websites. Again, there is no question it is a reliable source, and plainly the most reliable source about card games in existence. And of course a simple Google search will reveal both the pagat page and the article are accurate presentations of the meaning of the term. The only question about the article is that it is a "term", perhaps better for wikitionary and the glossary than an article, but it does no harm as an article in the form it is in, and is needed in some form because multiple other articles refer to it because it is the equivalent of an article like shuffle without which a reader would not be able to understand an article.2005 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2005: WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:NOHARM are not valid arguments. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'll pass on the wikinonsense. You obviously knew nothing about pagat, and won't even try to educate yourself so I'm moving on. 2005 (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- for the reasons outlined by TenPoundHammer. The single source presented is not enough to establish notability because of its exhaustive nature and the fact that much of its content is user-submitted. Reyk _YO! 06:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added another reference, and more sources can be found here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability as shown by the lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The book-reference and the list of books at Google books focus on the game of poker and the multitude of poker games. This is not significant coverage of this topic per GNG and fails WP:NRV by failing to obtain verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Also, fails NOTHOWTO - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Sources are needed that discuss the subject in detail, not the details of how to play. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course any book references for a variant of poker will be in books about poker. There is no need for a whole book to be about the article subject for it to have significant coverage of the subject. And WP:NOTHOWTO is about the way an article should be written, not about whether it should exist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, the last part of your statement is incorrect. Any of the WP:ISNOT criteria are valid grounds to argue for deletion. In this case, the relevant section title is: "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" and please see: instruction manual and (video) game guide and so on. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTHOWTO:
Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.
This article does the former. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of poker terms. I've added an entry there based on the existing references. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Glossary of poker terms per Power~enwiki's suggestion and initiative.~~ Roll-your-own cigarette as this is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and there is already a hatnote for the poker term at that target. ~Kvng (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree that a redirect to Glossary of poker terms would be the right outcome. I still contend, per the book sources that I mentioned above, that this is a notable topic, but the primary meaning of "roll your own" is obviously Roll-your-own cigarette and this phrase is used metaphorically in many other fields, so this article should be moved to Roll your own (poker). WP:NOTHOWTO is clearly not applicable to this article, but anyway the contention that it is reason for deletion rather than for changing the way an article is written has no support in deletion policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:NOTHOWTO says nothing about it excluding an article rather than writing it in an acceptable way, but, anyway, as I have pointed out twice above, this article is already written in an acceptable way per that policy. You are the one who is arguing against consensus by claiming that it is a reason for deletion(Redacted). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTHOWTO does indicate whether or not a topic deserves to have its own article. When a topic matches NOTHOWTO or any other "WP:ISNOT" then it is not meant to have its own article. There is nothing in this article that is based on coverage that says it is notable. The article consists of mundane details consisting of the rules of how to play in a general way.

This is the definition of a How to Manual; a Rulebook; a Game Guide; or Instruction Manual; all of which, frankly, Wikipedia is not. (Redacted). The content of the article consists of instructing the reader about how to manipulate the cards during a game - and that is all. So, the NOTHOWTO is one pointer that demonstrates notability or the lack thereof.

For example, there is nothing about the game's impact on society or groups within societies. There is no rationale presented as to why this is significant and has garnered notice in the media which enables it to be an encyclopedic entry. Hence, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). There is nothing in the article that discusses the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of this topic, as well as having concise summaries of those attributes in the Wikipedia article.

Regarding the deletion policy - see numbers seven and eight in the reasons for deletion:

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

AfDs such as this are discussion forums to determine whether or not a topic meets the notability guidelines. The discussions and the guidelines help to determine whether or not a topic should have its own stand-alone article. The WP:ISNOT criteria is specifically noted in WP:N; and "WP:ISNOT" is a policy page; and is one of the five pillars - please see - WP:5P1. Additionally, please note that I struck some of my comments. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I demonstrated above that loads of reliable sources exist to verify this and that it flies through notability guidelines. I can really do without lectures from the instigator of the most ridiculous and most ignorant deletion nomination that I have seen in over a decade of editing Wikipedia, who also thinks that a piece of utter trivia belongs in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the persuasive arguments by nom. I would also agree that this should not be a redirect, at least not to poker jargon as the vast majority of people typing this topic in would be looking for the cigarette type subject. If the delete does pass, I would suggest a redirect to Roll-your-own cigarette. Ifnord (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seems like a job for WP:DISAMBIG actually.~~ Your redirect proposal is good. I've changed my !vote (slightly) above. I don't think you'll see much support for deleting a redirect that (as you've acknowledged) is a likely search term. ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to merge and no dissent of the notion that there is nothing to merge So Why 11:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Towns in Mayo by population[edit]

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

Delete: This article was started 5 years ago and has not been revised since. It is a very small extract, just the 5 largest County Mayo towns, from the full version List of census towns in the Republic of Ireland, where the County Mayo entry consists of 32 towns, so it makes no sense to have this incomplete list. I can't find any other counties that have such a "largest town census data" page and this one omits up to date data. The latest census date for these 5 towns already exists in the main County Mayo article and this could easily be added there if warranted. I cannot see any justifiable reason to keep this orphan as it serves no new or significant purpose and only duplicates information available more fully elsewhere. ww2censor (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to County Mayo, per Ww2censor's nomination. If all the info in the article currently is already in the County Mayo article, or could be put there in the merge implementation, then no one should object. I am not sure this required an AFD; perhaps some bold editing to just implement the merge, or having a merge discussion at the Talk pages, would have sufficed instead. Since redirects are cheap, it does no harm to leave the redirect behind and avoid completely deleting someone's contribution. --do ncr am 21:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; all the relevant information is in County Mayo. I don't think this is a plausible search term, and there's no content worth merging. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southpaw Regional Wrestling[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are primary, YouTube or WP:PW/RS-determined unreliable. Just doesn't warrant its own article. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a whole discussion on this article before it was even created. If it warrants deletion than it shouldn't have been created in the first place. It warrants keeping. Jgera5 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Admin note: I converted your "ref" into a wikilink, with no other changes. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a discussion; those are declination reasons. There weren't two-sided arguments. Primefac hit the nail on the head with a declination reason and Chris Troutman with a note: To be notable you need many more journalistic sources and much more focus on critical reception. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly flawed logic, many articles are created even if they should not have been. It wasn't even approved so I have no idea why you would even get the idea that you should use that link as an argument.★Trekker (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard delete, the fictional promotion is not notable from what I can see of the sources. FOX Sports is the only possibly passable one as far as reliable sources go that actually focuses on the subject in question.★Trekker (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing in the sourcing that would indicate that this subject meets our inclusion standards. Being declined at AfC is not a reason to keep an article either. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Feast of the Broken Heart[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and little more than a track listing Jax 0677 (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. (Note: I created the stub.) The album is by a notable artist and has been reviewed by major publications (Pitchfork, The Guardian, Allmusic, Slant, etc). This is an unnecessary deletion nomination. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator apparently failed to do WP:BEFORE. Click the "news" link above to see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: passes WP:NALBUM with several reviews, as noted above... the article could certainly be improved, but that's not a reason for deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage for the album exists in multiple reliable sources, and some of these references have been added to the article. gongshow talk 23:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nom Withdraw, snow keep of NSPORTS. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distænt write) 02:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Aikenhead[edit]

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

This was a PROD byBoleyn under BLPROD, and declined by Drmies. I did support deletion, (see article talk page) and that's all I'm gonna say about the prod. While subject did win silver and bronze, she still fails the general guidelines, and the 2 sources in the article really only prove existence not notability. Unfortunately, the author, XerxesFalcon, is under an Indef block with 6 months for the SO, and has talk page access revoked, so we are unable to get their side of this. The article has gone nearly a month without improvement to the references, and I don't think waiting 6 months for the off chance the author does ask for and receive an unblock, so that's why I'm pulling the trigger now. I'm totally fine with the usual ATD of redirects and merge, or a TNT. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Per winter weather conditions Nom is withdrawing, and this can be closed. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 12:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She passes via WP:SPORTBASIC as a medal-winning Olympian. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Represented her country at Paralympics, enough for notability. PamD 16:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Competed in the Paralympics and medaled. Clearly meets NSPORTS. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality-based community[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, cannot find a widespread use of the term in the sense in which it is described on the page; only in a very loose sense, with multiple meanings. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 00:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiply-sourced article about a phrase that was used often in partisan discussions within and between left and right a decade ago. Also note that the user who introduced the notability tag recently removed it, citing "minimal coverage found & cited." Indeed, there could be more evidence of notability here, though elapsed time makes that a bit more of a chore than it would have been back then. Another problem with sourcing is that it was predominantly used on television and online partisan media. Such media is only "reliable" as primary-source proof that it was used there, so further sourcing might face challenges by those who scrub such sourcing. Search for "reality-based george bush" to find many such references, including a Bill Clinton comment on this term. Still, though what's currently there is minimal, it forms enough of a basis to keep the article, which has already survived two deletion attempts. Calbaer (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Survived two deletion attempts" is a rather pointless argument – after all, consensus can and does change. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a point of argument, just a afterthought (albeit a bit of a frustrated one, since some articles seem to attract repeated AfDs, as though their detractors think, "This time for sure!"). Calbaer (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I truly had no idea this article had been AfD'd before until I saw that Twinkle had started the AfD page with "(3rd nomination)".

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

02:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. While I don't remember seeing much use of this term recently, it was clearly (re: deletion discussion #2) used prominently enough just a few years ago to justify its continued existence as an article. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I don't have an opinion on whether or not the page should be deleted, I would point out a problem with some of the above arguments as well as those from previous deletion discussions – namely, that notability depends on direct and detailed coverage of a topic. Passing mentions or in-context uses of a phrase are not enough. In particular, not every neologism (such as this one) is suitable for encyclopedic treatment, no matter how commonly used by high-profile sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it would be nice if the users here asserting the term's relevance to this or that phenomenon would cite some reliable sources rather than relying on original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with the argument isn't that the term isn't used, it's that the meaning varies with use. The vast majority of usages I've found use it to mean "people who agree with me." I've seen it from both sides of the political isle, from liberal Christians (contrasting with fundamentalist Christians), from secularists (contrasting with religious folks), from social activists, etc, etc. I agree without reservation that the phrase is extremely common and often used. It's just that it's such a generic and vague phrase that you can't rely on mere usage to establish notability. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 02:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a phrase with a single meaning, and even if it were, this isn't supposed to be a dictionary. Anmccaff (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per two previous AfD discussions; and because Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Article needs improvement to cover the history of the phrase and the competing political communities that claim the high-ground of being the true reality-based community.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It was more prominent 10 years ago than it is today, but I don't think that's a valid reason to delete Wikipedia articles. In any case (if you're looking for recent relevance) this is the other side of Alternative facts, and the Wikipedia article was mentioned in an interview in the Atlantic magazine just the day before yesterday.[107] -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember the phrase, and the incident, as being very prominent in the media at the time. While the phrase could be used in other contexts, the meaning in the article refers to a specific use in a specific incident, and as such the meaning (as the subject of an article) does not vary, as MjolnirPants claims. Thue (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that the contemporaneous sources more than guarantee the entry should be kept on grounds of WP:GNG; plus the cite from September 2017 from The Atlantic right there holds that the term was historic for over a decade, remains current, and that it must be kept forever. It is true that some of its adherents may finally have come to realize how embarrassing their self-given motto always was, but that should be no grounds for its expunging from the Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. The recent citation in The Atlantic shows that it has staying weight as a term and meets WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The mention of the phrase in The Atlantic is from a Q&A with a rock musician who mentions the Wiki page and Ron Suskind's original article, by way of discussing a song on his current album. How exactly is that significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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