< 27 October	29 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Cavarrone 07:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Noriega[edit]

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

I declined this at AfC because it was not only an advertisement and questionable notability, but the sources themselves and even the ones listed now are literally only interviews complete with professionally taken flashy photos of either him or the boldly "naked photos", and they even go as far to then advertise them and his businesses, it's still therefore advertising wherever published, the listed sources are examples of this. Take the GQ for example, it literally not only says "How he maintains his six-pack" but it's an interview of the man talking about himself and his own career, it's not substantial or independent; likewise, take the NY magazine which clearly and blatantly not only advertises him, but cares to state "Give him his own TV show!". My own searches of News noticeably found large numbers of these exact same contents republished along with said professionally taken flashy photos.

When an article largely consists of that, whatever, whoever and wherever they are, it's still advertising, and the fact he simply happens to own some NY-based restaurants carries no inherited notability nor the fact it cares to specifically mention all of his modeling companies. Simply being in NY and having news sources interview you is not a sole basis of notability because it's actually an excellent example of advertising, especially when he's advertising not only himself but the restaurants, what they are, where they are, etc. Also, in the past before, we have explicitly deleted such articles because of the sheer advertising and how there was simply nothing both substantial and non-advertising to actually fix and save, this is an example of that. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth noting that two of the sources/further reading links are non-NY based sources - a national magazine GQ and a British paper the Telegraph. I would be more concerned with what you said was only in NYC press, but it drops when it goes outside of the "hot new restaurant" in the local media sphere. RonSigPi (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. My searches found nothing WikiNotable. Narky Blert (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An Olympic-standard swimmer who has now received plenty of coverage as a chef. Claims that the coverage that exists, from multiple countries, constitutes 'advertisements' and are 'promotional' seem to lack merit, and the fact that coverage contains 'flashy photos' is not a valid reason to discount them. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I checked this Peru at the 2004 Summer Olympics#Swimming and he isn't listed. There are no swimming sport specific guidelines, so it all falls to GNG. I worry about the quality of the sources. A lot of them talk about his Olympic credentials - would be great if he were actually an Olympian. That makes me question the journalistic integrity of what is written. For example, are they just promoting what he says without doing any fact-checking? The Telegraph article says he qualified, but was injured so maybe some are taking literary license. That being said, GQ, NY Post, NY Magazine, and Telegraph are all major publications and they seem to go beyond WP:ROUTINE. In view of this keep with some reservation. RonSigPi (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article says he qualified for Athens 2004 but didn't compete due to an injury. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources, such as some I added to the article. More are available in online searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 31 October 2016 (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. Sandstein 16:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Canada (Manitoba)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ORG and fails to cite any sources. Was never elected. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep It did lose elections, but it pulled Manitoba to the left and is notable. I added cites to two major books and two scholarly articles, all focused on Manitoba leftists & Communists. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A political party does not have to have succeeded in electing members to a legislature to pass our notability standards for political parties; it merely has to be properly sourceable as having nominated candidates. The individual candidates, conversely, don't qualify for standalone biographies until they win — but that fact does not have a bearing on the includability of an article about the party. Just frex, the nominator lists support for the Green Party of Ontario on his userpage — but that party has never won a seat either, and I'm sure he doesn't want to set a precedent that would wipe his own party off the wikimap. (And if the nominator wants to try splitting the hair that the GPO is a provincial chapter of a national party which has elected members to other legislatures in Canada, then he'll have to try again: the CPC-M is exactly that same thing too, because Fred Rose and Dorise Nielsen really did happen.) Yes, some sourcing improvement is needed here, but our basic notability standards for political parties have been met. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, nominate the Green Party of Ontario for deletion. The big diffierence is the GPO article cites sources. This one cites very few. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Four references is not "very few". Does it need more before it can be considered a good article? Yes. But is four enough to cover the basic notability question? Also yes. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please show me which guideline backs that up? Thanks! Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG states a specific minimum number of sources that have to be present before they're passed — they speak about types of sourcing, not raw numbers beyond the word "multiple". It depends on context more than numbers: one source can be enough to pass GNG by itself if that source is supporting an automatic SNG pass of the "anything that meets this criterion is an automatic must-keep" variety, and ten sources can be not enough to pass GNG if they're purely local sources supporting a notability claim on the order of "president of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Ladies Auxiliary bake sale committee". And on top of that, a GNG-passing volume of coverage doesn't always have to be present in an article before it can be kept — if a GNG-passing volume of coverage can be shown to exist in the real world, the article can still be kept and flagged for improvement regardless of whether it's directly citing all of that coverage yet or not.
        And incidentally, the GPO is not a lot better sourced than this is, because it's relying almost entirely on primary sources like the party's own website about itself — the amount of reliable and independent sourcing present in that article is actually no larger than it is in this one. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the article needs to be cleaned up to remove intricate uncited detail, but the subject itself appears notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Hi. New editor here, this is the first deletion discussion I've participated in, so please forgive any policy misinterpretations. It seems to me that while cleanup and further sourcing is required, I don't doubt the existence of more numerous secondary sources (newspaper articles of the day, for instance). Also, it's not true that the party never elected anyone: although operating under a different name (LPP), party leader William Kardash was elected four times to the Manitoba Legislature serving from 1941-1957. I feel that the Communist Party in Manitoba, while currently much reduced from its earlier incarnation, is certainly notable. nerdgoonrant (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems people are quite confused. There is Communist Party of Canada and references found go there.. But what the heck is Communist Party of Canada (Manitoba)? Staszek Lem (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The organization, affiliated with but separate from the federal party in exactly the same way that the Manitoba New Democratic Party is not the same thing as the federal New Democratic Party, which nominated candidates to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and Winnipeg City Council. Trust me, nobody's confused here. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Provincial-level history of one section of the Communist Party of Canada, subject of a copious literature. As is the case with American major and minor parties, the provincial and state subsections were quasi-autonomous electoral organizations. One might make the case that this was less true with the centralized CPC than with non-communist parties, which allowed much greater local autonomy, but the principle still holds, I think, that each is a subject worthy of encyclopedic exposition. I will also note that I favor a very low bar for political organizations, their leaders, and their youth sections, since this is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs serious cleanup but the subject itself is notable as a registered provincial party. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Party has been running losing candidates since the 1920s. Some sources have been added since Nom. More could be found on pages of blue-linked former candidates. Article needs major improvement, but the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2016 (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 TLC discography#Video albums. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. This album did not chart and it was not discussed by multiple secondary sources. Some references are cited but they do not support the assertion that the album charted. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did chart!! #9 in Billboard--88marcus (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NALBUM.--88marcus (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, Top 10 chart entry; this is not a good nomination - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TLC discography#Video albums. Charting in and of itself does not make a release notable. Actual coverage, where the video is discussed, is required. The chart position and source can simply be merged to the discography page as there is no other info that can be imparted from this article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm OK with this - having the redirect is important (the presumption is that something that charted is something people might look for), but the discography is a perfectly good place for the information on its chart placing, the only notable thing about it - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TLC_discography#Video_albums where it's already discussed; this compilation album does not appear to have garnered individual coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed, but I'm backing out the close per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 21 and letting it run for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TLC discography#Video albums. All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.^WP:NALBUM Charting does not imply notability; charting only indicates that it may be notable. Without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject the recording is not presumed to be notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - simply charting is not sufficient by itself to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Those editors stating that charting meets the guideline have missed the very start of it which states that coverage in independent reliable sources is also needed. Whpq (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Meets WP:NALBUM.--88marcus (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate !vote stricken. Also,you have not addressed the lack of coverage required in the guideline you are asserting is met. --Whpq (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charted top 10 in the US, notable enough. Will deleting this really make the encyclopedia better? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable enough implies it meets notability criteria. It does not. We improve the encyclopedia by ensuring that we meet the minimum requirements for a standalone article. Those minimums have been agreed through consensus and documented in WP:NALBUM. --Whpq (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well over the bar for the relevant SNG. Editorially, merging might be the right call, but from an AfD perspective, it more than meets our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "well over the bar" when the cited guideline asks for significant coverage in reliable sources and the article has none? -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - A fine point. I read that twice and didn't see it at the top there. Merge seems like the policy-compliant solution for now (until additional coverage should get found, I can only find one book and I can't tell what amount of coverage it has...). Hobit (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2016 (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. MER-C 12:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel L. S. Harper[edit]

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

Despite a great deal of self promotion, own web-sites, blogs, conference proceedings notices and the like, I could find nothing here that establishes any notability. Looks like a blatant puff piece. Had it not been quite so obvious, I would have happily tagged this for notability and see whether it developed, but this looks too bad to ignore. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much evidence of notability; mostly non-independent sources. Deb (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like other articles from the same editor, I get no sense that they have grasped the need for independent sources. Blythwood (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. No indication of substantial career achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 4 November 2016 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sword Art Online characters[edit]

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

This list of characters is unnecessary, and little more than an opportunity to drop all kinds of OR and plot detail into Wikipedia. References prove easily that these characters have no shred of notability and have generated no interest besides a mention here and there on ANN. List of characters articles easily turn into cruft--if some characters are important (by definition not all characters can be equally important), they can be listed in the main article, just like we do in articles outside of anime/manga. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Sword_Art_Online#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_Sword_Art_Online_characters AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was just watching an episode of the show and came here. I see additional information outside of just plot information listed for some of the characters. All major fictional franchises have character list articles, which although sometimes challenged, are always kept. Every single one I'm aware of anyway. I don't see how this one is any different than them. Dream Focus 04:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in a style similar to The Irregular at Magic High School. It would take an expert of the series to condense the list neatly though. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are just too many works for this series to have the characters presented neatly on the main article. I commend the work done at The Irregular at Magic High School but you are talking about 4 different works, versus 22 for sword art online. My suggestion is to try to improve the characters article via magazine reviews, reviews, ect... If any of the 22 different works attain WP:GA status then linking the character names would be helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, this was just discussed six months ago with the consensus not to merge. Considering the fact that Sword Art Online is one of the most popular Japanese media series of all time, and that the article's 15 sources are already more than can be found on many a BLP, I find the claim "these characters have no shred of notability" to be difficult to believe. Wikipedia has always hosted lists of characters, such as List of Neighbours characters (2016) (TV series), List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters (video game), and List of Marvel Comics characters: V (comics), so the second part of the nomination isn't really true. Also, you have to keep in mind that since this is a Japanese series for a primarily Japanese audience, the majority of coverage is probably not in English. A search for just one of the characters brings up plenty of hits, which can then be sifted through and sorted. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selective merge. Contrary to the above, there has been a recent trend of many of these list articles being removed. They are not necessary to understand the information in the main articles, and they're often just totally cluttered and filled with irrelevant junk. If this cannot establish independent notability, it can easily be cut down to the most core characters. TTN (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are talking about 22 different plot lines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And there is nothing in that list that is necessary to understand those plot lines. People will tout the necessity of character lists, but please show me what exactly is so necessary that it cannot be briefly mentioned in a concise section of the main article or simply contextually within plot summaries. Core characters get mentioned in the core summary and minor characters, if relevant, get mentioned in the relevant context. If you have a featured episode list, it doesn't particularly help to have a link to "Secondary Character G" explaining three irrelevant facts. TTN (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply too much information to jam into the main article, even if you do have the main character how do you explain their role in the 22 plots without confusing the reader? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a main character without an article, link them with a redirect to the primary character section of their first work, or if the sub-works each have their own article, simply describe the character in that work's character section while linking back to that primary work. Nothing of value is lost other than a central place to link those redirects, but as I mentioned above, nobody is really going to care about a couple dozen irrelevant secondary and minor characters. What is the necessity? What can be done with the character list that cannot be done with what I have said? There is no difference between a separate article and a primary section in the main article other than the number of irrelevant minor characters found in character lists. TTN (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While TTN may gloat about destruction of encyclopedic content, the fact is that characters from a notable fictional franchise (multiple separate fictional works) without a single redirect target are both appropriate and routinely kept. The aberrancies he cites are from poorly-attended, poorly-argued AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a lot of precedence toward lists of characters formajor fiction franchises (this one has novels, comics, games, 2 TV series, and a theatrical movie, so far). Not only are these lists useful to readers, they help with containment of what might otherwise become clusters of poor stub articles on minor characters. This list, for what it's worth, is actually better than many as it's neither unreferenced nor excessively detailed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~A precedence has been set by previous anime's and I don't see a good enough reason to change what is essentially working.~~ meets WP:LISTN. The anime is popular, maybe not as popular as some of the others have noted, but among the thousands of animes released, it is one of the more notable ones. This alone should be enough to warrant a keep. N. GASIETA|talk 00:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a very popular anime and video game series currently. If absolutely necessary, I can dig for sources, but I just cannot believe that we could scrounge up enough sources to meet the WP:GNG between all the games and anime releases, especially with a number of the character having their own individual articles, which I've reviewed in the past, and thought they looked pretty good... Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 3 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collective executive[edit]

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

Unreferenced and tendentious Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have you tried to source it? Bearian (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - this is the kind of management theory-topic that shouldn't be written about as being a universal law of the universe but as an idea (who coined the phrase, who supports and opposes it? etc.) But with no sources besides the author's opinion, this is dead. Blythwood (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder and Blythwood, are you saying that this is so bad it needs to be blown up and re-created? Bearian (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find decent sources by all means, but as it is it's not encyclopaedic. In so far as there is any proper content it duplicates stuff from Head of state. Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DEL7 with WP:IAR. An article with no sources does not create a burden to AfD volunteers to research the topic and source the article. Articles without sources should en masse be moved to draftspace, except for the rare exceptions that don't fail WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2016 (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) Cavarrone 07:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantons of the Corse-du-Sud department[edit]

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

The list is composed entirely of redlinks. I do not think that this is notable. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 21:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The French equivalent is a big article with lots of bluelinks, and several good-looking references. A topic and its subtopics can still be notable even if no-one has yet written articles in a foreign language (in this case, English). Narky Blert (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:LISTN, and redlinks are not a reason to delete: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group ... Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. These seem to be equivalent to state-level voting districts in the United States, which are notable (especially as a set), per WP:GEOLAND. Not sure why this one was picked out for deletion, given that there are 98 other nearly identical list articles (linked at List of cantons of France). Antepenultimate (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet notability for lists. Also, maybe some of these redlinks should be turned into bluelinks. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sampung Gamol[edit]

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

Film hasn't come out yet, so maybe it's WP:TOOSOON? Adam9007 (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The film has not been released and according to WP:NFF it should not have its own page yet. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 29 October 2016 (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. Merging and redirecting may be performed through normal editing and discussion; there is no role for AFD to perform here. See WP:ATD, WP:SK#1. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Kings County, New Brunswick[edit]

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

I have merged this with the main article because this article is just a stub and the main Kings County page is short. Feel free to remove the copied info from the Kings county page while this discussion is going on. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2016 (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. MER-C 12:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neomobile[edit]

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

Only Well written by professionals for promotional alone. no encyclopedia notability is here Light2021 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; WP:Corp and WP:Promo apply. Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt considering Jimfbleak had not only deleted twice, but it was then blatantly restarted as such, so there's then the concerns of the listed information and sources literally only existing to advertise the company and everything involved, the accounts involved themselves explain sufficiently this was only planned as advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2016 (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. MER-C 12:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MHITS[edit]

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

Only purpose is to create for blatant promotions. I must say, that is professional work writing such misleading promotional article. Light2021 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the blatantly obvious history of advertising-only account explain enough especially since all of their contributions not only focused with this one article, but it of course advertised the company therefore, now considering the sheerness of advertising information and sources, there's literally nothing here guaranteed of advertising thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a spam article Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a product brochure / investor prospectus in the guise of a wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2016 (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) 12:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Kowatsch[edit]

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

Biography of a Slovak composer and game developer. He's quite active online so he gets Ghits for his accounts on Twitter, Quora, Facebook, Stack Exchange and so on but there's no independent coverage of him in reliable sources. None of the nine references provided are the kind that we can use. The article says he's a game developer but never gives a company he's worked for or a game he's helped to develop. The article also claims that he's been read 2 million times but the reference given is his Quora account which lists about a thousand posts but provides no info about the number of readers. Pichpich (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; WP:promo applies. Kierzek (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being "listed in the World Genius Directory" is a bad sign and it gets worse from there. Blythwood (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: purely promotional piece which fails WP:GNG and notability in all areas the subject claims to be active in. He is an independent game developer; no evidence that his games have been picked up by the wider community. None of his academic papers appear to have published in a peer-reviewed journal. At least one of his two albums is self-published, and it seems likely that the other one is as well, because I can't find any online presence of Illumidyne Records or of any other record appearing on this label. Richard3120 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Gains[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Most of the coverage is either not from reliable sources. The rest is trivial coverage of one particular incident which was uploaded to Burgess' YouTube channel (WP:BLP1E). There are no sources given which interview him in an in-depth way. shoy (reactions) 16:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poor souring and subject lacks notability. Being a Youtube star is not enough. Meatsgains (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the writer of this page there are enough RS sources, discussing different incidents/aspects of the subject, and there are two sources directly interviewing him about his life and Youtube channel. Being an Internet celebrity does qualify for notability.Bigbaby23 (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move To Richard Burgess (activist) JohnTombs48 (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pride of the Dales[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Google brings up mentions but nothing substantial, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; WP:promo is clear. Noted that references are to own company website. Kierzek (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable small local company.Charles (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what a cute company! and they're involved with buses, beep, beep, "but coola, cuteness doesn't count", aaawwwwrrrr.... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, it may be cute:), but does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, have been uable to find anything leading to notableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as this is essentially actual speedy material, nothing at all close to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All companies that are part of the public transportant infrastructure are ordinarily kept, minor though they be. This is one of the practice which helps complete the connected network of articles that makes up an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a complete lie because I've had tons of these deleted and so have other editors...., If we use your logic not one article on this place would ever be deleted ?, bus articles (like any other article) are judged on their notability ... not on whether "it makes up an encyclopedia". –Davey2010^Talk 03:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Trenton, Georgia[edit]

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

Proposing to delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK and merge into Trenton, Georgia. Dare I say, this article may be a WP:POVFORK intending to place undue weight on this local flag. Brianga (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. As I agree with the original proposal to merge, the flag seems to be more notable that the town itself --Truther2012 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aren't flags generally deemed to be sufficiently notable to sustain a stand alone article? WP:GNG seems to be met, no problem with referencing in this article. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:POINTy nom- common practice for cities to have flag articles, not as if this one doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The C of E here. The article fulfils GNG as it has the reliable 3rd party sources required. It is not a FORK as this contains more information here than the city page as well as presenting it neutrally. In fact, half of the mentions on the city page are unsourced assertions. The Royal C (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the Trenton article is slim and this information could easily be merged into it, but as others have noted, flag articles are commonplace too, so I'm not sure about the benefit to the reader in deleting this. It is worth noting that the main Trenton article seems to contain facts about the flag that aren't actually featured in the flag article, so that should be remedied. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 21:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly encyclopedic material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Naccarato[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor. Award is for a promotional short. Fails to demonstrate notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-delete as previously deleted material. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A director of 1 promoreel is not notable even if it won awards. Domdeparis (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still as non-notable as he was when I last voted to delete this article a month ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2016 (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. MER-C 12:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lodging.com[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Only ~20 results on Google News, most of them are about a lawsuit that mentions the company with a few others. Also made by a COI editor. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty typical early WP submission that no longer passes muster. Just one of many sites to get swallowed up before it did anything notable. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. it was never significant. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 30 October 2016 (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) 12:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Mojo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still a non-notable hip hop group; article was kept simply because nobody else turned up for AfD round 1. There is one link to a blog, otherwise is unsourced. A search for sources just brings back an Allmusic page and lots of self-published or insignificant things. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete the Allmusic is just a listing, not even a bio. No US chart history. GNews gives me only passing mentions in show lineups. If there's anything that passes WP:NMUSIC, this is the time to add it - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject's coverage in RS is only of passing mention, thus lacking significant notabiity. Meatsgains (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Publishing Group[edit]

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

nn "independent music publishing company" - independent of independent reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam and an attempt to use Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST for the company's corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2016 (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 Culinary tourism. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food tours[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE - propose deletion as reads like a travel guide. Perhaps something to move across to WikiVoyage? Mike1901 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional rehash of Culinary tourism 157.235.66.80 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Culinary tourism per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bearian. Blythwood (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2016 (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) 12:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umart[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy on this article mainly because of its age. However, in the 10 pages of ghits I've looked at, I saw was nothing I would consider a reliable independent source. (I did find an insolvency report, but wouldn't consider that of worth.) The references given are a Bloomberg profile, the company site, and a report of an armed raid on one of their shops. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought the PC User magazine entry might actually be an article, but it's just a forum thread that lists Umart as one of many nominated websites. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG aren't met Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2016 (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 is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surau Zainudiniah[edit]

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

Was PRODded and dePRODded a month ago. This is a non-notable local mosque in Malaysia. No hits at all in GNews and GBooks. With only 45 unique Google hits, I'd say that this utterly fails WP:GNG. Moreover, it is not written in English --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability at all. --♫CheChe♫ talk 12:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . As per nom. SPA author with facebook as the only ref. Author removed my PROD and replaced it with the facebook ref. No evidence of any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems like it is just a local mosque which does not hit WP:GNG. NgYShung ^huh? 02:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:G7. Just Chilling (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easily led: a history of propaganda[edit]

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

Delete as the subject fails WP:BKCRIT. The paltry mentions I found don't indicate GNG to me and at present the article's only reference is the book itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, the subject does not meet notability criteria in either WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. (the article has no content about the subject as a result) --♫CheChe♫ talk 12:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suggest this fits into “criteria for speedy deletion” - and being sole contributor I decided to [[1]] -G7. Author requests deletion- disclaimer and I advise admins to enact it. --Fisuaq (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2016 (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) 12:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Cavallo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER and WP:GNG, youth player who has not played senior football. Also the article is completely unsourced. SuperJew (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article even says that he is yet to make his debut, so the article fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Sputnik has pretty much said, the article has more or less signed its own death warrant; clear failure of NFOOTY due to no fully pro games played. The coverage from reliable sources is routine at best too. Spiderone 15:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2016 (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. MER-C 12:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Julian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non notable businessman. He lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Comments from him are not independent coverage about him. Nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly carefully written, but too promo for my liking. Peridon (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable financial advisor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a promotion piece. Not Notable. Cbs527 (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2016 (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. MER-C 12:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier West[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable bit part actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo. Some day, maybe, but neutrally and not yet. Peridon (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Barely teenaged. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to eSports. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESports in Thailand[edit]

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

Unsourced article says nothing beyond the fact that eSports exist in Thailand in much the same way as every other country (same games are popular, local tournaments are played, they're streamed online), and that the phenomenon in fact "isn’t popular as much". McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What exactly is the rationale for suggested deletion in this case? If it's the lack of sources, there are plenty of news articles providing an introduction and overview of the status of e-sports in Thailand.[2][3][4][5][6] Or is it the actual status of e-sports in Thailand itself that is the cause of concern? Or the current shape of the article? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps this should have been a merge suggestion, on reflection. The problem is that it's broadly just a content fork from eSports: it's covering the same basic ground in saying that eSports exist, that certain games are popular, that tournaments are played, that gaming websites cover them, that games are streamed online. It's not claiming anything particularly unique about Thai eSports, beyond the names of some local tournaments and YouTube channels. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – The current quality of an article isn't relevant at all in a deletion discussion. A topic is considered notable and worth having an article on if there are reliable sources documenting it, and they apparently are for this subject. I agree, though, that nothing would be lost if this got deleted. I'd much rather see it improved to actually say something interesting and incorporate sources. Until then, this thing is pretty useless. I don't see a reason to merge, though. ~Mable (chat) 09:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Esports: Why is Thailand more important to have a "Esports in this country" article over the United States or Korea, both countries where Esports are massive. This article is pretty much saying Esports exists in Thailand, like any other country where Esports exists. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think an esports in Korea article would be awesome, to be honest. Creating a esports in the United States would prove rather difficult because of all the US-centric sources. Either way, I don't think 'other stuff exists' is the issue. I agree with that the article in its current state is useless. ~Mable (chat) 11:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Esports: No need for this country to have its own article in this subject. SGPolter (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable content to eSports. Its WP:TOOSOON for spinouts like this. This sort of thing may be more appropriate when the esports article is so large we start splitting it out according to various countries/regions...but we don't seem to be there yet, and it doesn't seem like Thailand shouldn't particularly be that first step yet... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Cephas[edit]

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

~~This article fails WP:GNG. Don"t really find any thing notable and verifiable about this person.~~ Historical Ben (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements and lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to see if I could improve this article as per comment above but a quick scan revealed that she won an award in 2015 and its reffed. Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician, coverage does not rise to the level our notability requirements need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nomination was made by banned sock. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and GNG as search results basically bring up only download links except this which I think isn't enough. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:38, 28 October 2016 (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) Cavarrone 07:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anai Mogini[edit]

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

At the moment, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY; have only played at a very low youth level; media coverage is routine. Some of these players are as young as 12 and, yes, I suspect some will be notable in time but, at best, these are a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone 08:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please close so that I can renominate the non-notable ones as individual AfDs Spiderone 19:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Spiderone 08:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~All~~ Most - As much as we need more articles on women's football, the subjects must still meet notability requirements. These girls all fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. At best, these are cases of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the four cited by Fenix down as meeting GNG; I also failed to perform more research before !voting. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the following - the four players below all have had lengthy interview with national newspapers or significant articles written about them in addition to more medium length coverage and have a large amount of more brief mentions in more routine match reporting:

Anai Mogani and Anuching Mogani. Clear GNG from google search as evidenced by the below. The fact they are twins has helped them garner a decent amount of coverage.

Anuching, Anai to become the first twins to represent Bangladesh women's football - dedicated article in national newspaper
The unstoppable twins - dedicated article from Dhaka Tribune
Realising Young Dreams - cached page but a lengthy article / interview in a national newspaper
Unrelenting Passion - couple of paragraphs on each squad player

Sanjida Akhtar. GNG indicated by the following english language sources, would expect more in local languages:

Sanjida scores 4.61 article on how the player balances school with international football
Unrelenting Passion - couple of paragraphs on each squad player
Feeling Like The Table Is Shaking: Sanjida

Shamsunnahar. GNG indicated by the following english language sources, would expect more in local languages:

‘I dream of playing in the World Cup’ - lengthy interview with player in Dhaka Tribune
Unrelenting Passion - couple of paragraphs on each squad player

Delete the following: Mahmuda Akter, Masura Parvin, Nargis Khatun, Nazma, Ruksana Begum, Taslima. All Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Of all the players, bar Taslima, who seems to have gained some tangential coverage following an assault on her father, the only source I could find that went into any detail outside of routine match reporting was this one, which is insufficient on its own for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Anai Mogini and Anuching Mogani as those pass GNG, Sanjida Akhter, Shamsunnahar, Sheuli Azim also played in national senior side in 2016 South Asian games. 1, 2, the present national line-up features five players (Sanjida Akhter, Sheuli Azim, Marzia, Shamsunnahar, Maria Manda) from a common district, Mymensingh. Thus they pass the NFOOTY.

Another dedicated article for Sanjida Sanjida in 7th heaven.

Masura Parvin selected for national team 1 2in 2014 but whether she played or not, that is not sure. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether these players meet WP:NFOOTY, this indicates that the men's competition at the very least was an U23 tournament, though it is not explicit about the women's tournament. Given the age of some of the girls noted here though, it does seem like a junior competition. Can anyone confirm? Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down:, the tournament's wiki page is 2016 South Asian Games – Women's. And it is certainly not U23 tournament as the age of top three goal scorer are 24, 26, 29. Also you can see the age column of tournament team squads. Also, while the Indian Women's football senior team will be fielded in the South Asian Games, the Men's football team will feature U-23 players. (quoted from news article). Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ibrahim Husain Meraj: I would update my comments above accordingly, however, can you confirm that she has actually played? The sources in the tournament article are a bit threadbare and do not mention her. Being part of a squad is not sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down:, Sheuli Azim, Sanjida Akhter, Shamsunnahar, Srimoti Krishnarani all played against Nepal in first game of 12th SA Games in 5th February, 2016. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some meet GNG. Nominating editor should do due diligence rather than proposing deletion of articles on women's footballers en masse. Hmlarson (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the four that meet GNG as highlighted by Fenix down, Delete the rest. Giant Snowman 11:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - re-nominate individually as previously mentioned. --Jimbo^[online] 18:27, 30 October 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan Clancy[edit]

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

Seems to be only 'famous' for one newspaper article and being possibly, but not confirmed, a relative of Abby Clancy. See WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Spiderone 08:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed he is the subject of one article in the British tabloid The Sun and that is basically it. Newspapers and tabloids always feature "example citizen" in their stories to get their point across, that makes those persons not notable. Apart from this single article in The Sun there is literally nothing out there on him. He is not a "personality" at all, he is just an example (one of many) used by The Sun to underline their story about teens using mobile phones. I dont even think that WP:SINGLEEVENT does apply, because there isnt even an event at all, he is just a completely non notable person. The article should therefore be deleted on the ground of general non-notability per WP:GNG. Dead Mary (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non-notable person who is 14 years old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree he only had 1 interview in the sun so fails WP:ONEEVENT, However I would like to point out to User:Cullen328 that the subject is almost 16 (seeing as he was 14 in the article a year and a half ago), not 14 as claimed. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @AlessandroTiandelli333: OK, he is a 15 year old minor now, but all he has done that has attracted notice is get interviewed by a newspaper about his smart phone usage when he was 14. The notion that he is somehow notable because of that single newspaper article is ludicrous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor who wrote this "article" has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:46, 2 November 2016 (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 Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the Reason (Victoria Justice song)[edit]

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

The article was nominated for speedy deletion criterion A9, which clearly does not apply here. However, it is only sourced to Amazon and itunes, where one can buy the song, and my search of any sources describing it in any depth (beyond the text of lyrics and proof of existence) failed. Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove everything except categories and turn it into ((R from song)) redirecting to Victoria Justice. Classic example of a non-notable song, where no article is justified but a redirect populates categories. Narky Blert (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Return to redirect to Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show. Zero independent notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show, per above. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moragodage Christopher Walter Pinto[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer & diplomat. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO in that the references cited are only mentions in passing. There is no inherent notability in either being a 'legal adviser' to a Government Department nor being ambassador. The prize mentioned is a high school prize (and not a notable prize either). Dan arndt (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. RollingFace99 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete no inherent notability in any of the roles. A mere 3 gnews hits. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:DIPLOMAT: " If an individual who is, or was, the "head of mission" meets the criteria in a well-respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual biography article can be created ". Therefore, since the subject was a head of mission. It justifies the presence of this article. Cossde (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that's an essay. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This has been clear consensus on this as many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is much coverage in local media on Pinto Lanka ready to make massive seabed claim New Sri Lankan Ambassador to The Netherlands presents Credentials Sri Lanka’s MCW Pinto appointed Arbitrator for Dispute between Denmark and the EU Sri Lanka’s Fifty Years at the UN Future of Sri Lanka lies in the sea National interests play paramount role in taking decisions Lanka ready to make massive seabed claim Lankan judge in international tribunal . Cossde (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the articles about the sea bed dispute are just one line mentions. Not in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We lack articles that provide indepth coverage and none of his positions give a presumption of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this is not a notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2016 (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) 12:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Wetherill[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UBreakiFix and had I known this CEO article actually existed, I would've co-nominated it with the company article, since both of them are not only blatantly advertising complete with specifying PR awards and his story about the company, but the history itself consists of only advertising-focused accounts which is self-explanatory; simply for sheer consistency, my searches unsurprisingly found PR and republished PR, which is also self-explanatory. The benefits of this AfD will also be to bar any future attempts since the company article was itself deleted once before and is now salted. In fact, looking at the article closely again, I see one of the accounts, Kellz303 in fact pseudo-acted like a "advertisement removal" account with apparent efforts of removing a few advertising information parts here and there of other articles before letting go of the account, but not before actually reviewing and accepting this article to mainspace themselves and also subsequently starting another advertising article, SolidFire (currently at AfD) themselves....Yet another suspiciously self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable CEO of a small, local phone repair company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu[edit]

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

Simple reason, it is an article about a living stegosaur that was sighted like once or twice and about a word that appeared on a book by Roy Mackal. Also nominating Muhuru and Ngoubou. Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - there isn't a lot of coverage, but the term does appear to be covered in several books which are available on google books. JMWt (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Admittedly notability criteria for cryptids are a little strange, in that reliable sourcing means it's no longer a cryptid :p As far as coverage as an unconfirmed animal goes, this does seem to get a fair amount of mentions across the net.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Classical cryptid, mentioned in bibliography. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Kentrosaurus. It is just a name given to said species by local tribes. JohnTombs48 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems an entirely unprovable assertion.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take note that Mokele Mbembe and Burrunjor, also "dinosaur"-like cryptids are both covered in many sources - books, articles, and tribal legends. If that is not enough both have "foot print" left behind. Take also note that despite all that Burrunjor was deleted per an AFD because of lack of notability [7]. Off course, a creature with more reported sighting, more article coverage and even artifacts left would warrant a WP article more than these, right? Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge with Muhuru and Nguma-monene. Considering 3 articles talk about nearly the same creature, in similar contexts, I think that warrants it important enough to be kept. Yilangren (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, Muhuru is up for deletion too. Maybe you're right, merge, and then delete them both at the same time. Just a suggestion.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A highly speculative creature with no basis in fact, just scrappy hearsay. Even the article concedes, "No physical evidence for the creature exists." if it had even attained a measure of folklore importance that may be different. But a "few" sightings don't seem to raise it above the millions of other such unsubstantiated claims the world is so full of. Wait, I see a ghost! You did too? Let's put it on Wikipedia! Not trying to sound petulant, just making a candid point. Encyclopedic information should not be based on villager tidbits. However, if new evidence shows this alleged creature truly has a place in folklore, then that might be different. But you know what, I'll bet my lunch you never find it. Let's not use Wiki for inventing creatures out of thin air based on some hokey-pokey nonsense. I ask for a delete in the absence of further evidence for any folklore significance or valid scientific evidence of its existence. And one final note, the article's first line asserts the creature's existence as fact. I'd help fix that if I thought it deserved to be kept.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I had to come back for this one. I just read it again, it fails on every level. I'm thinking Speedy Delete Nobody rebutted my previous opinion, and I think I made a good case.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd like to add, even within the speculative realm of cryptozoology, this alleged creature doesn't qualify. A "few sightings" with "no physical evidence" is not even above the worth of a vivid dream. No further evidence can be expected, because the article's own description of the "evidence" itself precludes that possibility. Thanks --J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect... somewhere (maybe List of Cryptids. In the Cryptid topics, leaving a redlink is clickbait that will result in all of us being back here for AfD rounds 2, 3, 5, 10, and 52. :-P Though speedy is tempting, "no physical evidence" pretty much is the definition of a cryptid. Montanabw^(talk) 03:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Living dinosaur might be plausible. BTW, I was also the nominator, I just have not much time to log in. 130.105.224.60 (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2016 (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. Feel free to redirect if the target article (Xbox controller) ever adds a reliably sourced mention of the drivers, but it would be inappropriate to redirect if there is no mention. czar 00:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XBCD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged by Aoidh in February 2013. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find evidence that this topic is notable nor could I find any reliable sources (how-tos and YouTube videos and etc.). This seems a likely search term, however, so even though unmentioned at Xbox controller, I think a redirect to Xbox controller is the correct direction to go. --Izno (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was actually a user of this project years ago, back when I didn't have the cash to spare for a special "Xbox Controller for Windows". I was almost certainly directed to it by a gaming news site, because I wouldn't have guessed that the cable could be spliced straight into a USB type A! I'll look around during my lunch break. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The VGRS search finds mentions by commenters but not even a passing mention by a website writer. A primary source might show WP:EXISTence, but that's about it. Certainly not at the level of detail of the present article. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As this is driver software, it is not subject to the GNG for Video Games. It seems to fall on the wrong side of WP:NSOFT regardless. Like most niche interest projects, there are many discussions, tutorials, and reviews on relevant forums, but almost no publications. This is a problem with a lot of FOSS projects, too. Regardless, I won't argue WP:ITSUSEFUL or anything. I did find a published tutorial on a site I used to frequent, however:

http://www.notebookreview.com/news/how-to-use-an-xbox-controller-as-a-media-center-remote/

157.235.66.80 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting it needed to meet anything other than WP:GNG. However, if note of the XBCD doesn't even show up on the VGRS search, it's usually bad news outside that bucket of sources. --Izno (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but this controller isn't just used for video games, as evidenced by my link. Their wide availability and low cost makes them desirable for media center PCs and hobby robotics. I ultimately agree with you, though. Reduce, merge, and redirect seems to be the best course of action. The article is too long for what it is. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Izno. Fails the GNG by itself. A redirect is probably...generous, but they are cheap too... Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 30 October 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Chambers burning death[edit]

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

NOTE: If this article is kept -- I am not voting as I am unsure -- the name should be changed to Murder of Jessica Chambers, as per established MOS format consistency. Quis separabit? 17:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS. A tragedy indeed, but not every gruesome murder needs a Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject and article is notable, many reliable sources. I'm the author this article. Subject is notable and has several reliable and noteworthy sources. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to have enough RS to meet general notability. I'm not sure about the specific guidelines for death of articles, but it does seem to meet GNG. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 17:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at the present time. What is the purpose of the two "see also" links, given there is no connection? One of them, Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla, also appears to be a suitable case for AfD. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, telling that lead describes this as an "incident", also WP:NOTMEMORIAL, external links section contains a "Justice for Jessica" facebook page. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An absolutely textbook case of NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, typical WP:NOTNEWS story, we cover crimes etc. only if they are of lasting significance beyond routine media coverage. Sandstein 10:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as now a snowball's chance in hell of surviving considering this was literally a one-time event and local news attention for it, nothing else substantiating it for a convincing article otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 6 November 2016 (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. Wifione ^Message 09:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I Want Is Everything (Victoria Justice song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Redirect repeatedly reverted. SummerPhD (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONGS due to not charting. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect due to it failing WP:Notability (music)#Songs: "Most songs" (such as this one) "do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." The redirect might continue getting reverted though, so I'm not sure if it would be better to just delete the entire thing. Chris (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources or redirect to the artists page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2011 (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 1982 Lebanon War. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Lebanon War[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Lebanon War as page links already exist there. Abbottonian (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Abbottonian, what are your reasons? Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1982 Lebanon War because (a) that's the redirect which was in place from 2007 until the dab page was created last week, and (b) that article includes the words "First Lebanese War" whereas South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) does not. In other words, revert the creation of this dab page, because one of the two entries does not mention the term in question so is not a valid dab page entry. I see no reason for the nominator's suggestion to redirect to Lebanon War. PamD 11:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's the Israeli name for Israel's 1982-2000 involvement in Lebanon. Since we have separate articles for the 1982-85 and the 1985-2000 periods, a disambiguation page is better than a redirect. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to one article (probably 1982), but provide that was a redirects here capnote for the other. This is a common way of dealing with two-item dab issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1982 Lebanon War per Mikrobølgeovn's analys, and then add a hatnote. Typical two dabs situation. Cavarrone 20:57, 31 October 2016 (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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Rani[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is the Captain of the Bangladesh women's national under-17 football team. --Nahid Hossain (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so? Joeykai (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai: it would appear that the user has created several such articles; some players as young as 12! For example, see Nazma, Mahmuda Akter and Sheuli Azim. Worth investigating if someone can do so. Spiderone 08:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Actually those girls brings revolution in Bangladeshi football, as the country is conservative and women are not used to play football. Those girls became champion AFC under 14 south zone for two times. They became group champion in qualification round for AFC under 17 cup and qualify for the main tournament for first time on the merit. For those reason, the girls get wide coverage in national newspaper frequently. Thus the article fulfills the WP:GNG criterion. They get "Significant coverage" in TV and print media, "Reliable" as many of them are national, well-established newspaper, "Sources" as secondary sources, "Independent of the subject". You can find about 95 news results in google search for Krishna Rani in English and about 170 for Bengali search and also about 39 results in country's leading English newspaper The Daily Star (Bangladesh).

Disagree, Then how does the article fails GNG? In WP:NFOOTY, there is a note that says "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The team, as a whole, is notable. The sources provided in the article are more to do with the team rather than Rani as an individual. I don't see how Rani herself meets GNG. Spiderone 10:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - lack of, or complete absence of, coverage from independent, reliable sources on this woman as an individual rather than just part of a successful team, which does warrant an article. Spiderone 10:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passes NFOOTY because of new evidence so now keep Spiderone 16:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear GNG from a simple google search as evidenced by:

Krishna's success turning the tide lengthy, dedicated article from national newspaper
Under-16 women's team rewarded - further article from same newspaper with significant quotes from player and family
Our very own Queen - Dedicate lengthy article / interview from Dhaka Tribune
Captain Krishna - further lengthy article on player from Bengali media

These are just from the first page of a google search. Additionally there are loads of match reports which can help flesh out this article. To be honest, I'm not sure how these were missed by either @Joeykai: and @Spiderone:. Simply because someone is a junior footballer does not mean they are inherently non-notable. In instances like these it is even more important to follow WP:BEFORE. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Fenix down's argument. Article might fail WP:NFOOTY, but coverage suggest article might pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now can pass the WP:NFOOTY, as she also plays for Bangladesh National Side. in 2014 SAFF Women's Football Championship, in 2016 SA Games, another link of 2016 SA Games, financial express, 2016 dhaka tribune. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. WP: NFOOTY rarely applies to the majority of women footballers except for players who play for a senior national team or 3 active "fully professional" leagues (Netherlands, Sweden, U.S.) and is in need of an update. Hmlarson (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I admit it fails WP:NFOOTY per nom, it passes WP:GNG which overides WP:NFOOTY JohnTombs48 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, numerous sources available, thanks to Fenix down for listing some above. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC) oops, and Ibrahim Husain Meraj Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Sharma (filmmaker)[edit]

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

No notability + No credible assertion of significance = No Thank You. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable Indian director directing films like Saat Uchakkey. It is my efforts to create an informative article about him. He is already much in news, IMDB and in blogs. If this page or pages like these are marked for deletion, It will defeat the purpose of wikipedia of sharing information. I have already placed references.Day000Walker (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and personal blogs are not considered reliable sources. All of the sources used in the article are about his film. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 22:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Bassett[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Piece also reads as very promotional. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a stub and requires time to be developed. The numerous sources in the article establish the notability. Her infomercial is one of the most recognized and ubiquitous in history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrJDsJl2ELY She's a bestselling author and has been on every major talk show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Wt2pCCct0 Her products are bestsellers on Amazon and with glowing reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Attacking-Anxiety-Depression-Drug-Free-Self-Help/dp/B000SO5IMI Plus, she's a well-known radio talk show host in LA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUvL7albR90 Copy Editor (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Yet one more from the seemingly infinite queue of self-help salespeople. I can find no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just a metric ton of self-promotion and press releases, and a few interviews in local press (e.g. Malibu Times, cited). There's some fairly interesting (mostly negative) discussion of her work by real psychologists on blogs, but again that's not WP:RS. Article was already speedied db-bio once in 2007, and once again yesterday. This latest attempt was created as Lucinda Redick Bassett for some reason, and linked by that name from self help by the same editor. Wikishovel (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I linked this page to the self-help page because she is a self-help author. I created this page as "Lucinda Redick Bassett" because that is her name. Copy Editor (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No impact on literature. Nauseatingly promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment i'm the one who started this page and the one who wrote it. I am not affiliated with the subject whatsoever and therefore this page is not written in an attempt to be promotional. The information I included was an attempt to make it verifiable and to demonstrate notability. Copy Editor (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft instead and I'm willing to take care of it while there because WorldCat shows over 2,000 library collections and these books are by major publishing companies which is in fact satisfying the authors notability (highest held book is in nearly 900 library alone), so that is improvable, and that is surely a sign of available book reviews and, once achieved with that, this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point. I don't understand how an author who is published by such big publishers isn't notable, particularly given that at least one of the books was a bestseller that was translated into foreign languages. https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n95075001/ Copy Editor (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So many books are published by regular publishers that they can't all be notable. They will sell, probably, because of the vastly greater publicity that the publisher can generate, as opposed to the self-published who have to do all the work themselves. But sales are not what Wikipedia works on. I'd think ST is right on this, that more work is needed and a move to Draft space could be beneficial. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But what is a draft space? Copy Editor (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different areas on Wikipedia have prefixes to the page names - this page in in the Wikipedia: (or WP:) space. This is for sort of official space. User: is user space, Special: is for odd things that the technically minded know all about (or claim they do...), Template: is for guess what, and articles don't have a prefix because that would confuse visitors even more than than now. Draft: is a fairly recent space, which is for things under construction that aren't yet ready for article space. In Draft: space, anyone can help to build a draft up (though I would doubt that very much of this goes on unless someone like ST offers help here at AfD). The alternative is moving to your userspace (where outside help is even less likely without direct appeal) and that would be to User:Copy Editor/title. In both user and draft spaces, the patrollers can usually only tag for copyvio, attack, advertising or hoax. Using either of these spaces is like using a nursery rather than scattering seeds in the garden. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some clean up and expansion with additional references. Meets WP:AUTHOR #3 and WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean-up. The BLP is smarter but notability is still not improved. I still vote delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Wikipedia's notability is defined outside of Wikipedia, and WP:N is not a content guideline, so it makes no sense to say that after an edit, "notability is...not improved". Unscintillating (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not improved because no better sources have been found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

In 2001, Bassett took part in a collaborative venture alongside Roberta Flack, Diana Krall, F. Murray Abraham, and Nona Hendryx, all of whom contributed a track to the meditation album "Visionary Path." Bassett narrated a track called "Mountains." [8] [9] Copy Editor (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate indicia of notability, published and a number of works. The tone is too promotional, but there have been improvements, and again, article quality is not a notability question. Montanabw^(talk) 06:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- worth keeping at this point under WP:AUTHOR; thanks for the improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2016 (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 Voluntarily Userfied. The discussion was trending towards deletion at the time of userfication. AGF, just make sure to address the concerns before moving it back to article space, and hopefully we wont need to have a second discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Chambers[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Sources only support that she was one of the first pilots in this program. What is her notability for? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable but the entry does not do enough to establish notability. I will try to work on it and bring it up to a properly sourced, stub status. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for secondary sources to support notability before nominating for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I spent a lot of time looking for and finding online sources to support Betty Chambers' notability. I believe that there are more sources and further information in book sources that are not digitized, but I am not able to go to the library and/or track these down at this point. Right now, this woman, who was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously, and who was one of the earliest WASP pilots, has 20 citations for what I consider a solid stub article. It's not perfect but I think it passes notability and is now in condition to be Kept. While I agree that possibly the initial draft was not developed enough to be pushed to the mainspace, was part of a large initiative editathon that was done in conjunction with the National Archives, her notability is not in question, especially now. Please advise. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask, aside from being one of many early female pilots, what is she notable for? Did she go on to set some aviation record, or run for Congress, or star in a movie? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am confused here. Are you possibly confusing WASPs with the much larger WACs? The WASP program was highly selective, both mentally and physically rigorous, and was a program that produced pilots in a very short time. Within Chambers' class only 50% even passed. There were not many WASPs at all so it was a huge thing, and for this woman, whose husband was a pilot who died while in service to become a pilot herself -- while the mother of a baby not even a year old -- that is notable. Plus her son was featured in a very popular movie at the time, although I wanted to focus more on her than him. So yeah being a pilot was a big deal and makes her notable. This might be a failure on my part as there are a ton of resources in oral history collections and books on WASPs that would support her notability that I don't have access to or have a privacy lock until January 1, 2017. But for a stub I think this challenge to her notability is overly stringent, if anything has more to do with my inability to establish it than the facts of who she was. I would ask you to reconsider. Also I have asked for help from archival experts so please hold off on the deletion if possible. Again I think this AfD is unduly harsh but I am doing everything I can to address making article better. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated this article for deletion, I first looked online to see if her notability could be established through reliable sources. Only then did I nominated this article per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, as I didn't feel this bio met the criteria outlined there. Being someone's mother, or graduating from a rigorous training program, generally don't make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It's really nothing personal. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said this was personal. I'm not sure where that comment comes from. This page was created during a GLAM initiative that focused on the gender gap and highlighting archival records from the U.S. National Archives. The resources are within the collections of archival collections so a quick google search is not going to be the indicator or notability. Actually the fact that this is the basis for your decision as to notability is a concern. Not all collections are digitized or discoverable in this way. Wikipedia can establish important tertiary sources like these archival holdings and oral histories. But to rely on a google search for this decision of historical figures, well that is what highlighting National Archives records is all about. Again, I think this should be reconsidered as a measurement of notability. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am working with archivists from NARA and TWU now to gather more information so because this is going to take time I am moving this page to my user space in order to protect the work already done and so I can continue to develop the page. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of many WASPs, but she doesn't stand out. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless more is found and added with WP:RS cites, as currently it lacks notability in the end and WP:Memorial would apply. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close without consensus. An editor (not the creator) has moved the article out of mainspace to userspace while they improve it. There is no need to pursue the AfD since the article is no longer in mainspace and no longer available to readers. General Ization ^Talk 00:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Magnolia677, please note that establishing notability using online sources when the subject was primarily active prior to 1960 and not a public figure presents some special challenges. We have no requirement here that sources establishing notability be available online at all. General Ization ^Talk 00:41, 4 November 2016 (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 Mississippi State College for Women. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laverne Greene-Leech[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Nearly everything published about her has to do with her receiving this award. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every desegregation of a university makes those involved notable. This occured 4 years after James Meredith needed US Marshalls to make it safely to class at the University of Mississippi. I think we need more coverage to justify a stand alone article. On the other hand I have to admit I think we also need better coverage on what happened at the University of Mississippi for the 4 years after the intimadation of Meredith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greene-Leech may not be notable (unless other sources are turned up), but the desegregation of MUW might be. I added sources as I found them and the more I worked on it, I think that Wiki would be better served either expanding this article to include the other women who desegregated MUW or incorporating the information into the MUW article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mississippi State College for Women (MSCW). This target topic is a redirect, so the double-redirect bot will make a change, but the point remains that the topic of this AfD only need be covered in the context of MSCW integration. When the MSCW article is written, the material from the Greene edit history will be useful, although an option also exists to expand the MUW article with the history of MSCW integration discovered by the new research. Besides MSCW, I noticed a couple of more articles that are missing, Robert E. Hunt High School and the R.E. Hunt Museum and Cultural Center, both mentioned in http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=20293. Unscintillating (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2016 (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. Despite three relists, this is a BLP and no reliable 3rd party sources meeting GNG have been provided; the only possible close is therefore to delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.M.[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. This person appears to have co-produced songs for various notable artists, but there are few reliable secondary sources to support biographic notability. The article makes a claim of a Grammy Award nomination, though the source to support this doesn't once mention his name. It seems he was one of many who co-produced a few Grammy nominated songs--barely an indication of notability. The article also lists a hodge-podge of iTunes links, but most of the links don't even mention him. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It is a stub article, but he was still Grammy Award nominated, nobody cares about your opinion about him being "barely nominated", he was still nominated regardless, which means that he still meets requirements for him to be notable for Grammy Award nomination. Xboxmanwar (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two links at the bottom of the article supporting his Grammy nomination don't even mention his name. I'm not quite sure why you reverted my edit when I deleted them. Bogus links don't add much to an AfD. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: You don't understand how Grammy Award nominations work, those albums were nominated, which means that all the producers and songwriters on the album are also nominated because of their work on the album, all of the producers and songwriters name doesn't need to be on the nomination, only the artists name needs to be there since they are the main recipient, so they aren't bogus, you can see more information about this process here. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xboxmanwar's rationale. He's a credited producer on two Grammy-nominated songs - the significance of his role in those productions isn't on trial here. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to a reliable secondary source which confirms this person was nominated for a Grammy? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I already told you how the process works, I don't know why your asking this person for sources if you don't need them since they are automatically credited, as explained before. Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG, the Grammy Nom was only marginally connected to the subject - they weren't the primary artist or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Doesn't matter, still Grammy nominated. Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Says who/what? Are you citing something in particular? Sergecross73 msg me 04:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: They were producers on the Grammy nominated albums they worked on. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But there were a lot of writer/performers/production/engineer/assistants in these recordings. A Grammy doesn't magically make everyone in the building notable... Sergecross73 msg me 04:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a few times in this discussion for a source which specifically states that B.A.M. was nominated for a Grammy, but the reply seems to be that because B.A.M. was tangentially involved in the production, they automatically fall under the Grammy nomination umbrella. Was the janitor in the recording also Grammy nominated? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Well, since everybody on the album is automatically nominated for the Grammy, that would be plausible. Xboxmanwar (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will assert that TGT alone were nominated for the Grammy for the album Three Kings. According to this source, no fewer than 35 people assisted them to achieve this tribute, including:

Andrew Hey, B. Edwards Jr., Black TyProducer, Bob Robinson, Brandon "B.A.M." Alexander, Brandon Hodge, Carvin Haggins, D&D, Damon Thomas, Darius Logan, Devin L. Resnover, Dominique Logan, Don City, Eric Dawkins, Fabbien Nahouwou, Ginuwine, Harry Casey, Harvey Mason Jr., Ivan "Orthodox" Barias, James "JDoe" Smith, Javad "MrKlynik" Day, Javonte Pollard, Jay Valentine, Kenyon Dixon, Kristal "Tytewriter" Oliver, Lonny Bereal, Marcus "Whit" James, Marcus Hodge, Rick Finch, Robert Newt, Tank, The Underdogs, Tim & Bob, Tim Kelly, and Tyrese.

...but the nomination belongs to TGT. Otherwise, there would be some reliable source--maybe a sentence or two on the Grammy website--which says "Brandon "B.A.M." Alexander" was also nominated for this Grammy. It is indeed very awkward to ask those participating in this discussion to assume that all 35 of these people were "Grammy nominated". Magnolia677 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Read this for more info, but the nomination does not belong solely to just the performer, but to the whole team that helped make the album, you don't need a reliable source or any source for this since they are automatically nominated in the process. Xboxmanwar (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided leads to a large, unsourced section of a Wikipedia article. If the editor of that section had added sources I could confirm its truth; otherwise its circular sourcing. Could you please locate a reliable source to support this? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Straight from the Grammy Awards website. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to a webpage on the Grammy Award website. On that webpage it states: "The Record Of The Year category recognizes the artist’s performance as well as the overall contributions of the producer(s), recording engineer(s) and/or mixer(s) if other than the artist." However, that same website only lists the winners of the Record of the Year, not the nominees. To maintain text-source integrity, this source cannot support that Brandon "B.A.M." Alexander was a nominee for a Grammy. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Again, you don't need a whole list of songwriters, producers, etc. that were on that album to be nominated, the citation you put from the FAQ of the Grammy Awards states exactly what it says, to recognize the artist and the songwriters, producers, etc., but the songwriters, producers, etc. don't need to bed listed because once the album is nominated, the crew is nominated, plus it would be a long list to add to. Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The even bigger issue is the lack of third party reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail. It fails the WP:GNG - the ultimate standard we're trying to meet here. A Grammy Nom can be a good indicator of notability due to the increased likelihood for sourcing to exist, but it's not a substitute. (And it's probably less of an indicator when we're talking about a tangential production member and not a primary artist.) This is especially crucial because we're dealing with a WP:BLP. The fate of this article is ultimately going to boil down to whether or not there's significant coverage. So far I have not seen evidence of this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is getting silly. There are numerous sources already listed for this guy's contributions to the album, well cited on his own article as well as the articles for the albums in question. These are the credits listed on the work itself, after all. Just to confirm, here's a source that lists Brandon Alexander (B.A.M.) as the producer of Open Invitation: http://www.allmusic.com/album/open-invitation-mw0002206694/credits and one that lists him (as Brandon Hodge) as a composer http://www.allmusic.com/album/three-kings-mw0002557795/credits -157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that confirms his production credits, but not the question of whether or not that itself proves his notability. I mean, look at the credits - there's over 50 people listed there. I counted around 7 to 8 of them had "Producer" in the title, and another 7 to 8 with "Engineer" in the title. A huge number of people were involved in the production of these releases - a Grammy Nom isn't enough to give a free pass to notability to everyone from the sessions. The fact that no one has produced any sources that satisfy the WP:GNG is telling as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He had a significant role in an album that meets WP:MUSICBIO 8. "Producer" isn't a token role in music (as opposed to its misuse in TV and cinema) - it means "recording artist", which lies somewhere between "director" and "editor". He's the top credited staff on Open Invitation. No one's suggesting that the accountants and vocal cleanup crew need articles, this isn't a slippery slope. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO states that it may indicate notability. The doubt of this though, is, as already mentioned, there were 8 other producers involved as well. We don't know how involved he was in particular, nor can we verify the details because no one can come up with any sources that cover him in significant detail. As I alluded to above, things like MUSICBIO or WP:NALBUMS andWP:NSONGS are considered indicators of potential notability, but the WP:GNG is the actual standard here. The complete failure of the WP:GNG completely squashes out that potential. You'd be better off showing how many features Billboard has done on him or something. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is determined by looking at WP:N. WP:GNG is co-equal with several other guidelines. We also assess Wikipedia notability by looking at various essays, WP:OUTCOMES, and the WP:N nutshell. Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we're currently looking at a WP:BLP with zero third party reliable sources that discuss it in detail. Its currently sourced to a bunch of iTunes listings, and a few articles that don't even mention him by name. As is, there's no way around it - this is not an unacceptable scenario on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for what its worth to the AFD closer, the principal account in favor of a "keep" argument was just blocked again for making unsourced claims on a BLP, so its rather clear he doesn't understand the concepts at play here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any secondary sources about the subject and I am unable to verify the claims of being grammy nominated. We do not just assume that someone has been nominated, we require evidence. I do not see the evidence here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2016 (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 11:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amber DeLuca[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article appears to have been largely edited by the subject, with all the attendant issues you'd expect. 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really sure which sports guideline is best to apply here because she seems a jack of all trades, but since she seems to be a master of none I don't see any of them being met. At the same time "Pennsylvania State armwrestling champion 2001" might be the most impressive title I have ever seen on Wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive if it could be verified :) Meatsgains (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable or not, its a pretty great title.Thumb wrestling champ might be more impressive though... TonyBallioni (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Politrukki (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable athlete per nominator rationale. Quis separabit? 16:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ATH. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 06:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder (CMS)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Drupal distribution. No reliable sources have been added since the first AfD, which was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be more references in German language media (meedia.de and heise.de are already in the article). I will look for other tech-related sources of this kind (eg. chip.de). Pavlor (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- chip.de is out - owned by Hubert Burda Media. So there are (now in the article) only 2 RS: meedia.de and heise.de - both cover only initial announcement. Pavlor (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Added golem.de reference - again only coverage of the initial announcement. Pavlor (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The product needs to have notability of its own and I don't see enough. There are many CMS available and Thunder seems to be a recently launched variant of Drupal. I would say this is WP:TOOSOON and go for a delete at this point. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (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 Mike Coolbaugh. Don't usually close on 2 however participation is extremely low and relisting this won't gain any new !votes so am closing as redierct (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas League Mike Coolbaugh Memorial Coach of the Year Award[edit]

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

This award is too far down in the weeds to have significant coverage required for WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mike Coolbaugh, which mentions the award. Smartyllama (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mike Coolbaugh per Smartyllama. Although reliable sources discuss the award's recipients, the sources do not discuss the award itself (i.e. its history, significance, etcetera). Thus, the article does not satisfy WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holograf[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced (and flagged as such since 2007!) article about a band, which makes no strong claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC. Between the length of their career and the fact that most of the potential sources, if any exist, are likely to be in Romanian, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can improve it to a keepable standard, and no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this -- but articles are not entitled to a permanent exemption from ever having to be properly referenced. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Please note that the article has been deleted between 2008 and September 2016 [10], until I asked for an undeletion request, so check a page's journal first before stating flagged as such since 2007!Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look at the Romanian article for assertions of notability and WP:RS citations. What did I find? self-written sources, discogs, and some promotional interviews. Nothing which I'd call anything like an independent source. If even the local fans can't supply any Romanian WP:RS sources, I'm calling a WP:NMUSIC failure. Narky Blert (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Wiki is in a poor shape, Romanians simply won't write, they have other interests, that doesn't mean the band is not very well known in Romania. I'm an administrator there with over 70.000 edits and I know what I say. Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting taking into acount the four big awards from 8th criteria from WP:MUSIC, the band's article has the potential to fulfill all of them. They really don't need to be promoted through promotional interviews, they are already well known in Romania and they don't depend on their Wikipedia entry. But of course, as I don't know bands from Bangladesh, that way I can't ask others to know every best band from each country.Ionutzmovie (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added references to the article. Razvan Socol (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I stated on the request for undeletion here. One of the most famous Romanian bands, nominated multiple times for Romanian Music Award pentru Best Group, Romanian Music Award pentru Best Song. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media from Romania. Has had more than a hit on a national music chart in at least one medium-sized country. Has released two or more albums on the most important Romanian label before the '90, Electrecord and after the 90's Mediapro Music, Roton [11] Also mentioned in Music of Romania article.Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They also have the most broadcasted song at Romanian radio stations in the last five years [12], if that's not notable I don't know what is.Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The band is featured in End-Year Chart 2004 (Romania), End-Year Chart 2006 (Romania), and this is just after the year 2000, or the band has composed their hits before the 00's, and those charts are hard to find online.Ionutzmovie (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also featured on the following award pages:

MTV Romania Music Awards 2004
MTV Romania Music Awards 2007 Ionutzmovie (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The album Holografica was sold in 100.000 copies in the first two weeks and Pur și simplu was sold in over 250.000 copies. For a country under 20 million people which pirate almost everything, that's quite an achievment.Ionutzmovie (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I extended the article and I think that using the argument that the ro:wiki article is at stub level as a reason to delete this article cannot be taken into account as I stated above.Ionutzmovie (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ionutzmovie. Holograf passes WP:NBAND with flying colors, mainly criteria #2, #5 (Roton and MediaPro are some of the biggest labels in Romania and can be considered „some of the more important indie labels”), #10 (soundtrack of Orient Express (2004 film), in which lead singer Dan Bittman also starred; as well as the more recent, but less famous Ultimul zburător), and #12 (they are definitely on rotation at least at the 3 national-wide radio stations in Romania I listen to).- Andrei (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Step[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article, with some advertorial undertones, about a band whose claims of notability are tied entirely to university student media, which WP:NMUSIC makes a special point of explicitly deprecating as a class of media outlets not able to bring the notability. It takes more than getting named a "hot pick" at student radio to get a band into Wikipedia. Also probable WP:COI, as the article was created by "Beatlestefano81" and the band's lead singer has the given name Stefano. Bearcat (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you're the only person who will write an article about your own band, that's a good sign that it's not notable. Shouldn't a 23-stop tour have had actual articles written about it? 157.235.66.80 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idomoo[edit]

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

A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as literally an advertisement not actually substantially contributed or changed by anyone else that wasn't an advertising-only account, and this is emphasized and symbolized by the sheer fact the information and sources are then only the company's own advertising or republished; there's nothing to sensibly suggest better if everything is blatant motivations of PR. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and the subject's only coverage is in press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles in TechCrunch, Reuters (written by staff, not a reprinted press release), and Venture Beat are not press releases. Satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have actually established a consensus here at AfD that TechCrunch and VentureBeat have notoriously accepted PR and passed them to be apparent news, and we have also established that they will literally advertise anything about the company, therefore there are some speculative things suggesting it's likely "pay-for news", something churnalism emulates exactly; to be specific all of those contents in those 2 "articles" only advertise the words and information the company wants to say about itself, therefore because we have to question as it is about the independent and substance concerns, and then also if it's literally paid advertising, we cannot accept it.

Also, as noted, the article itself entirely advertises the company as are the listed sources, the history itself shows the advertising and we cannot simply ignore that as if it never existed, because the advertising concerns here largely outweigh any apparent benefits. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "established a consensus here at AfD that [they] have notoriously accepted PR and passed them to be apparent news." I hate to assume but I believe you mean that you and others believe these publications do so. However, my search of WP:RSN found nothing indicating that they are not reliable sources. In fact, I found comments that they do fact checking which is one of the biggest criteria for a source to be considered reliable. Here is also the ethics statement of VentureBeat which says they do fact check.

So let's say they do have a habit of passing off PR as journalism. I am very family with the term churnalism but neither would apply here. Both of these pieces are written by staff writers (one a senior writer and the other is an editor at large). There is no indication on either article that it is promoted or paid for as VentureBeat clearly marks native ads as sponsored content as does TechCrunch as indicated from this tag. Some sources actually do a good job of reporting news. That is why you have to look into these deeper. You also never said anything about Reuters.

Finally, when you state "the article itself entirely advertises the company as are the listed sources" it takes away from the credibility of your argument. Looking at the article, I agree that everything from the "Overview" section down needs to be removed or rewritten. You can easily remove that with one click. However, I am not sure how the introduction paragraph and the history section is advertising the company. Stating facts is simply stating facts. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And after removing everything We are left with one or two sentense entry on Encylopedia. Is that really a Wikipedia Content. It makes it Directory or PR host which merely such article even created. There is seriously nothing to write about such article on Wikipedia except a paragraph. If we go by GNC for one article, that might be covered by significant media. Wikipedia becomes News distribution network. If it is already covered there. Why you need to write same on an article just passing GNC? Where are the sustainable coverage? as is the case these days. Such articles and references are being misused to build Wikipedia Reputation by such companies. Eg.: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed

And definitely as being Commercial media channel, publishing 1 articles for such company does not harm, as clearly influenced by company. because after that one article. The company disappear from press. It is not my guidelines as many think I am creating my own. It is by Wikipedia. News must be sustainable not just once. VentureBeat ethics written on their own website does not make it any better. Techcrunch and venture beat do publish as they are online media like many others, they need lots to publish "I mean every media need lots and lots to publish in media". being encyclopedic notable we need to do more. One Paragraph? Light2021 (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for sounding rude, @Ligh2021: but your writing is very illegible. I am unsure of much of what you are saying so I don't know how to respond. It sounds like you are unhappy with the notability guidelines which I completely understand. If that is the case, this is something you need to address there, not through AfD. You can nominate as many articles as you want for deletion but it will not change the guidelines for WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately I think quite a few - not all as some have been good and I even supported your recommendation on those - of your mass deletion recommendations fall under WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. But I am only one opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every one has different ways of knowing and understanding things (I have read them though). Just doing my part what I understand the best. I welcome your thoughts and your contributions. thanks :) Light2021 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that satisfies my assessment, few articles to read:

Light2021 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, they simply state facts about the company, and none of that actually leads to any notability; as for the AfD consensus, we have established here, simply look at any recent company AfD closed as Delete, and you'll see we have explicitly seen obviously advertising articles and that's because those 2 websites clearly cater to anyone of the investing and client field who may be interested, therefore we cannot take those as being assuredly independent and not PR-focused; if this was NYT, that may be a different story, but those websites such as TechCrunch and VentureBeat clearly are PR-based, exactly how Forbes is now massively filled with PR advertising articles from either the businesspeople themselves or "special day contributor" (which essentially means it could be anyone from a company employee to a paid PR agent).

Therefore, actually stating that a lot of this will need removal but that the mere fact sections such as overview and history stay, none of that actually establishes notability. To focus again with such sources like the ones above, we have explicitly stated before and found that when an article largely states only what the company itself would know such as its business plans and thoughts and the specific numbers of money it was either paid or given itself, that shows it's clearly PR advertising, essentially a republished PR piece for churnalism; and that's why, because such websites are not focusing with actual news, if the company simply states everything about its own advertising instead.

Once we start compromising with such blatant advertisements, simply because of an apparent "news article" with overspecifics about the company, we start damaging ourselves by then being vulnerable to "Hey, they accepted PR simply because it was masked by another website hosting it!"; for such cases, we have excellent pages such as WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT (and WP:IAR at best for still questionable cases). SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP insufficient reliable in-depth independent coverage. MB 15:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical startup cruft. No indication of notability, sources are PR blogs and DB entries which just say "it exists". 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability is not a content guideline, see WP:ARTN. Critiquing the article is not a path to argue that the topic is not notable. Unscintillating (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam and A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been rewritten, advert tag removed. There are lots of references to be found from around the world, just gotta do the search, and this is an easy name to search. Founded in 2007, nine years seems a bit long to be claiming the company has not received attention "over a period of time". Unscintillating (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2016 (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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social microcosm[edit]

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

Its only sources are dictionaries. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Results of "Books" show this expression is mainly used in psychotherapy to describe therapy groups, but not in the way this article uses it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2016 (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. Sufficient consensus by established editors. The only delete vote other than nominator is more a comment on others' votes than on the subject. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tulu Nadu[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)

This article is quite controversial as Tulu Nadu is not a recognized region by Karnataka. Reference sources may be self published and cannot be verified. Also I do not see the notability criteria being met and as to why it should be on Wikipedia. PageImp (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the region is not an official subdivision of the country is not determinative as to its notability. Compare New England and Scottish Highlands. Tulu Nadu has historical and linguistic notability. See, e.g., Karnataka's Rich Heritage - Art and Architecture: From Prehistoric Times to the Hoysala Period p. 382 ("Tulunadu (South Kanara district and adjacent northern Kerala), was the traditional land of the Alupa dynasty."), The Dravidian Languages p. 158 ("Tulunad (tulunadu), where Tulu is traditionally spoken, is geographically and sociolinguistically compact. Its geographic compactness derives from the natural boundaries that enclose it"). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This page should not be deleted. Why?
1. Can article survive on Wiki for more than 12 years if it didn't meet notability criteria, and suddenly someone decides it lacks notability, it baffled me?
2. And the region which has it's own language, culture, history how can someone say it doesn't meet notability criteria?.
2. Is not being "official region" a criteria to consider for deletion on Wikipedia?
3. Or Is not being "recognized" makes it controversial?
4. Is all the articles on wiki are about "recognized" things? So there can not exist an article related to region which is not recognized? Is Tibet a recognized country?
(talk to Me)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "keep" !votes was made by an IP, and the other looks like a typical fake !vote made by a fanboy. Delete. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to me we're looking for reliable sources which show that this place is notable. Well, it is referred to as a place in The Hindu, The Times of India, The Economist etc. I suspect that there is a lot more to find in published books, scholarly papers etc. The fact that it is controversial is not a reason to delete. JMWt (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Tulu Nadu" itself seems like a notable historic and linguistic region, but this page cites mostly dead links and pages that reference aspects of the regions which are not specific to "Tulu Nadu" but are rather just characteristics of the constituent regions. While the page looks good and has lots of citations, I wish the sources were better and there was less material based on the underlying regions and more about "Tulu Nadu".Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gets a huge number of hits in reliable sources. The current poor state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. Zero^talk 05:30, 5 November 2016 (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) 12:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Mugoya[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a media personality and businessman, which just states that he exists and contains no actual claim as to why his existence is encyclopedic. Of the sources being cited, one is a blurb about how good he looks in one of his clothing company's own suits, which reads far more like a fashion blog entry than an actual news story, and the other is just a photograph of him graduating from school -- so neither of them contribute to building a WP:GNG claim, because even the one that has some actual content doesn't have substantive content. As always, neither businesspeople nor television personalities get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist; reliable sourcing, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass GNG and even a Google search doesn't yield much to establish notability of the subject. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 17:03, 29 October 2016 (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) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Crain[edit]

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

Crain was Miss Arkansas in 2014. Not only is that about all we know about her that is notable, that is almost all we know about her at all. The coverage is all from either hometown media or from her college paper. This leads to flash in the pan coverage, but nothing lasting that rises above the level of one event. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. 10 references, eight of them different, looks impressive. They are all, as far as I can tell, reliable and local. It must be noted that all of them, every single one, reference Miss Arkansas in 2014, a single event (WP:BIO1E), that does not pass the threshold of notability (also WP:Notability (people) and WP:GNG) for a separate article. Otr500 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2016 (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) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loren McDaniel[edit]

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

This article is decpetive because it has a very well developed citation body, but lots of weak and reliable citations do not overcome the problems the article has. McDaniel is not notable for anything past being Miss Arkansas, and that alone is not enough to justify an article. The citations are either to press releases and blogs of the competitions, to passing mention in articles about other people winning Miss Arkansas, or to her college paper or home town media. None of this is enough to establish notability for a beauty pageant contestant. My search for additional sources turned up nothing that would add towards passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Miss Spirit of Arkansas 2014 or Miss Arkansas is enough to present notability. Not one of the 21 references present anything other than Miss Arkansas. The two references to Miss America, if they were not dead links, would be primary, ----and---- she placed in the top 15. The only actual attempt at notability would be Miss Arkansas so fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. --- Otr500 (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior outcomes; nothing stands out about this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2016 (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 Munna Bhai (film series). Tito Dutta (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munna Bhai Chale Amrika[edit]

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

This is non-existent film. I was unable to find anything in the searches. No sources at all. The release date 29 June 2022 (as mentioned in the article) is way too long. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It says part 4 in he article, but the title of the article "Munna Bhai Chale Amrika" is perhaps a misspelling of the upcoming third part which seems to have the name: Munna Bhai Chale Amerika (see here or here) so maybe it is a misspelling? There is also a trailer for the third installment of this series on youtube. Coverage of the third part is also not very convincing though, as it is scheduled for 2017 or 2018. Dead Mary (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - an IP editor brought this article out of a redirect, and created it with the AfD template. So he's nominating it for deletion? The user has demonstrated questionable judgment across a number of articles, and has brought numerous redirects back into articles prematurely and in several cases contravening WP:NFF. If this article doesn't get deleted it should be redirected, because he has not demonstrated that principal photography has begun. He's made many sloppy mistakes, so it's also possible he is recreating an existing article under an incorrectly spelled title. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2016 (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) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Glover[edit]

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

Glover's one claim to fame is being Miss Arkansas, and that by itself is not enough to establish notability. The coverage is all eiter sources created by Miss America and its affiliates, extremely local coverage, press releases from the university she attended, or passing mention in coverage about the Miss America competition itself. Nothing that comes close to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of notability. Winning one event, Miss Arkansas, does not provide enough notability for a stand-alone article, and all the references but one are only about that. The one reference, concerning Miss America, shows her as a finalist with 7 other girls. Nothing "special" about that. Otr500 (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage to prove notability. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2016 (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. Eventual merging to Port of Mongla or to other targets can be always discussed in the article's talk page, obviously. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongla Export Processing Zone[edit]

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

No indication of significance. Poorly written article that appears to be an attempt to create a webpage for the organization in question. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Port of Mongla, of which is an extension. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is not an extension of the Mongla port, but located in the Mongla sub-district from which both take their name. Mongla port is under the shipping ministry while the EPZ is under BEPZA, a wing of the prime ministers office. I have made some improvements to the article and it is better now.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is one of the Special economic zone in Bangladesh, which is not a part Mongla port (sea port). Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2016 (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.