< 16 September	18 September >

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hampton Park United Sparrows Season[edit]

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

Year article for a club at the sixth level of the Australian football pyramid. No need for a separate article. Clear COI (see name main author). No serious content. The Banner talk 23:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete does this qualify as a speedy? Article creator has a history of creating non notable articles. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, also repeat offender, all the 2016 seasons and math competitions he added got deleted for the same reason. ronaz ^Talk! 11:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NSEASONS, all articles related to this club have been deleted as non-notable recently. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article on team itself was deleted as well. WP:NSEASONS prefers a redirect where the team article exists, but it doesn't. Smartyllama (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it is a season article for a club we don't have an article on. WP:COMMONSENSE. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Completely unnotable. ¡Boz zio! 04:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to redirect or merge with so needs to be deleted for failing NSEASONS Spiderone 22:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has hardly any content. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 12:32, 24 September 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. No evidence has been provided that the award in question is notable enough to merit an article, given that no independent or reliable sources were offered - or even stated to exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XBIZ Award for Best Actress—Parody Release[edit]

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

Recently contrived niche award without significant reliable independent coverage. Little more than negligible generic text coupled with oversize performer images. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Similar award pages have been/are being deleted without much controversy. Exactly zero independent sourcing; the Daily Sport page cite is just a cut-and-paste copy of a promotional press release, replicating even its typos ("Couple's"). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calling big budget porn parodies (or porn acting awards in general) a niche is a bad lie. Just keep spreading your personally made up opinion. Moreover, other deletions based on no explanation but only counting (narrow) votings, mean or establish nothing. Regarding your "uncontroversial": I'm just too tired to waste my time with disputing these random counting decisions, as porn is really not even nearly my favourite Wikipedia topic, but I'm somehow unintentionally stuck here, thanks to your AfD inflation. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "personally made up" about the opinion that article subjects should have significant coverage in indepedent reliable sources. It's the long established consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our core content policy Verifiability says that we must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Most of the sources in this article are published by XBIZ itself so are not third-party, and also fail to establish Notability. The Sunday Sport reference is to a blatantly unreliable source that routinely publishes lies just for the fun of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe Cullen328's last sentence then take a look at the image in the infobox at Sunday Sport. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources and no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, er samwinchester.Pwolit iets (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERX - No issues with you agreeing with anyone however you need to put a bit more than just per x. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All sources are XBIZ .... so clearly the award isn't notable outside of XBIZ itself, I can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' -- no independent reliable sources available. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 20 September 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford Sri Lankan School Doha[edit]

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

A search indicates that this topic is probably not notable. Izno (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. Just Chilling (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do see problems with the wording of the article (tagged it for "peacock" language), but it otherwise meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see anything that doesn't meet the standards for deletion. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 12:46, 24 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innoosy[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Page created by Ubiclouder (talk · contribs) whose userpage shows that they are clearly representing a company. This page seems to be able some process invented by the company. Pure self-promotion. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is random writing by author. No source of credibility or notability. Light21 22:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light2021 (talk • contribs)

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and delete the copy on their sandbox too. Also, someone should block the creator at least until they agree on a username change. Blythwood (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam, original research and violating WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like advertising to me. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 12:48, 24 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jango (website)[edit]

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

Delete Sources are written in promotional or advertising tone or more of a Press Release. Nothing significant achieved so far. Written like a brochure or website content. No credible reference or covered with substance by media. Article is not appropriate to the wikipedia guidelines as per WP:NOT Light21 19:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Light21 22:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep Try actually looking at the sources. CNET article, PC World article, GigaOm article. None of those are press releases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. Here's a Los Angeles Time article with significant coverage of Jango.com. There are plenty of other RS in the article as well (and not in the article yet, but available). Safehaven86 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Ohnoitsjamie. Chase (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unchain --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR No clear nomination argument. Why can't ordinary editing fix the problems? WP:NOT is a long policy and there is no clear indication here of which parts need attention. The objection that the sources themselves don't follow Wikipedia policy is not a valid view of a reliable source, as a reliable source can have a point of view, and still be used to source an article with NPOV. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:WEB and WP:GNG, well sourced article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a newbie to Wikipedia, with a background in music, then I recommend keeping this article. The article from the Los Angeles Times appears to meet WP:GNG FortunaMajor (talk) 16:22, 24 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cinsay Inc.[edit]

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

Written like a company profile. No notability. Not even a public company. Articles references are written in a manner with close association with the company. Article should be deleted. Light21 19:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly promotional, bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are mostly primary sources. Google search fails to find independent coverage in RS, mostly press releases and basic directory type info. Nothing to establish notability. MB 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; obvious "corporate spam": History, Clients, etc. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST for promotional materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very run of the mill company lacking widespread coverage. The lede is so poorly written that I'm not even sure what this company does. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reason as K.e.coffman AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 12:52, 24 September 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. Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (website)[edit]

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

There is nothing significant about the organization or website here. It should be deleted. Light21 19:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep Plenty of non-trivial coverage from sources that easily meet WP:RS, including Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Detroit Free Press, and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep: ~~Bad faith nomination; it is just one of many others by Light2021. Anup [Talk] 21:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)~~ Sources cited in the article clearly establish that subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP standard. Anup [Talk] 21:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Light21 has nominated a flood of articles today, which had me concerned for a moment too, but I've been going through and agree that >90% fully warrant deletion. I'm wondering where they're finding so many relentlessly terrible articles that escaped notice for so long ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Article reference are used mainly from one source Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and all articles are written in a manner that promotes website as advertising or promotion not some significant coverage. Alexa Ranking shows 217,520, surely not very popular website to impact. Articles lacks major independent references related to this category other than repeated media sources. Article is not appropriate to the wikipedia guidelines as per WP:NOT Light21 22:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light2021 (talk • contribs)

Comment I've struck your !vote; You only get to cast one, which you've already done via your nomination. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure The sourcing looks good at a glance, but as nominator notes, it's a single local paper. And the tone of the article is blatantly promotional and has me reaching for the WP:TNT. I'd like much better sourcing before saying "keep", and even then it still needs a non-promotional rewrite - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's non-trivial coverage from Pittsburgh's top two newspapers, plus the article from the Detroit Free Press. That was enough to tip the scales for me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG based on sourcing from Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, and Detroit Free Press. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage presented above does not meet WP:AUD and is strictly local and run-of-the-mill: "local company does well", not much more than this. Does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Detroit Free Press, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review are all major regional newspapers that provide significant coverage of the subject so WP:AUD and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline are met.
Any promotional issues are minor and can be addressed through normal editing, not deletion. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Detroit Free Press, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review are all regional press, not meeting WP:AUD requirement. This is insufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the articles listed above are in fact advertorials in that one of them says the business "guards your memories!", entirely PR, the next one then is a few paragraphs but it noticeably contains interviewed information and also company information, whereas the other is a clear interview with the CEO. None of this comes to comes to both independent notability and substance; all of this is still thin and is therefore suggestive of fluff, not news. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 26 September 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. Withdrawn - In all honestly I was 50/50 on nominating this, I wasn't 100% sure this could be a franchise but I guess it is, That aside I was probably a bit too hasty in nominating this and like Tokyogirl79 I too believe this could be a great article so closing as Keep/Withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Beaker Franchises[edit]

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

Not a franchise as such and unsourceable anyway, all of this info is already in the seperate articles so nothing to merge, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a decent enough rationale towards having a page for the programs as a whole, given that the series spans the following articles:

This is already covered somewhat at the page for the book series, but I think that it could very well merit its own page given the sheer number of series out there. There's content in this article that wouldn't really fit in the book series page that would actually be worthwhile to have and would also be in keeping with similar articles about long running tv series.

As far as franchising goes, this looks like it'd technically be a franchise. I'm not incredibly savvy but I do know that a franchise would cover multiple media. This series seems to cover books (that inspired everything else), the TV series and film, and video games for the Nintendo DS, mobile app, and PC. (The PC and DS game appear to be the same game, but on a different platform.) I think that it'd be a good idea to have an article that focuses on the franchise as a whole (games, books, TV series and film, random merch) and then have a separate page for the book series to differentiate the two. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:49, 18 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drago Vrhovnik[edit]

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

A pseudoscientist in a BLP that is way under-sourced for the claims made.

See also Tungaj transformer Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:GNG. There is almost nothing about him or his company in reliable sources. His invention have no real reception, the "awards" he won are not notable or covered anywhere. There 2-3 short blurbs about him in local Slovenian media, but they are short and don't establish notability. He seems to be some kind of entrepreneur for his "products", but his company does not pass WP:NCORP either. Admittedly the part where he received his enlightenment was very funny to read in the article. ;) Dead Mary (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pseudoscience-promoting spam. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe theorist lacking adequate mainstream coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a vanity page. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 20 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Beckford[edit]

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

I'm not sure what our notability criteria for child prodigies are, but completing an online university course and receiving some local media coverage afterwards doesn't seem to be enough in my eyes. bender235 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete mostly because the article is such an awful parrot repetition of some awful journalism in these sloppiest of sources. He did not "attend" Oxford, for any useful definition of attendance. He's an extremely smart kid and no doubt he will amount to much in due course. But the current article is doing no-one any favours. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He completed a university course, not even got a degree, just completed one class, 5 years ago and there was press about it. He may well become a major and significant contributor to the development of human knowledge, but that has not happened yet, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crucially, he didn't "complete a university course", as the phrase would be interpreted by an average, reasonable reader. "Completed a university course" would be read by a UK reader as implying that "completed" implied a three year course of study and that "university course" led to a BA. UK universities, and Oxford, run their courses on such a basis. US-like notions of much shorter and modular courses are rare. Instead he only completed (with great success) an unusual short course, specifically for gifted children, run by Oxford University. The sources used here are sloppy, mostly because they're not making such a distinction clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I don't care whether you delete the article or not, I'm not gonna fight its deletion, watching this kid on Youtube I just thought he was worth a Wikipedia article. Suffice to say that all the politics highlighted by everyone here were not in my mind when I created that article. The only thing I was thinking about were the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia opened for everyone to contribute. Bobbyshabangu _talk 10:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbyshabangu: it sure is, but Wikipedia has (and must have) notability criteria, otherwise it will become unmanageable. --bender235 (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - imo doesn't meet WP:GNG. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 13:01, 24 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Baker[edit]

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

Non notable educator. The article on the Challenger School was deleted as non notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenger School (2nd nomination), so I do not see how founding ti could provide any notability.The material in the personal life section is in my opinion a violation of BLP1E, to the extent that it struck me as being a personal attack. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing credible is written in article. Lacks substance for Wiklipedia Notability.Light21 22:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light2021 (talk • contribs)
Delete - Subject lacks notability. Most of the page's current references are local news outlets and the personal life section, as DGG noted, is WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E. Meatsgains (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I had talked to the user about this, and they themselves suggested it was simply not notable or acceptable enough; I see nothing to suggest there could be any better information and substance, and I would not have accepted from AfC had it been used. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak delete - I agree that there is doubtful notability, but I don't see how its could be classed as an attack page. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 22:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 22 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Luv[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content; indeed, no nontrivial biographical content. Claimed award is not even notable, and therefore fails the PORNBIO "well-known and significant" criterion. Previously speedied; PROD removed without coherent explanation or article improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP as an article about a living person with no reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable, third party sources as required by our core content policy Verifiability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 19 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3Dponics Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. This article was previously deprodded by DGG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. probably not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I noticed that a number of the references were formatted incorrectly on the page, making an article's author show up as the publisher. Once the correct publisher is added, it looks to me like there is enough secondary WP:RS sourcing here to pass WP:GNG. Examples: Metro News Canada, High Times, Mic. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the first link listed above barely even focuses with said company, the second link then is essentially a sales pitch since not only is the name "From printer to plate: Tech company gives gardening new dimension"! (you may as well have added a video with a sales pitch, since that's what the name insinuates) this second link then actually goes to talk about the benefits and usage about the company and services with specifications and the photo is even supplied by the company (See the bottom which specifically lists "source: the company"; finally the same can be said about the third link since it's clearly focusing with only the company's benefits and services, but then containing information only the company would be interested to say: Since 3Dponics is an open source company, you can download every pattern you need for free, and once you rig 3Dponic's drip-based watering system to slowly feed your THC tower top to bottom with fresh water, you're good to go. So what does 3Dponics get out of this? Well, you can always subscribe to their delivery service, where they'll send fertilizer and lights to help your garden grow (no genuine journalist would be interested to say that unless he was either persuaded or enticed). SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO. The tone of the article is advertorial, while the coverage I see is PR or PR-like, indicating that this company has not yet made sufficient impact to warrant an encyclopedia article. Awards listed are trivial and are there for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 23 September 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 speedily deleted by Bbb23 as a blatant advertisement (G11).(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS)[edit]

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

The only references are associated with the organization. This article and Gabrielle David and 2Leaf Press are a walled garden. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 17 September 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. I will survey this lot, salt-cellar in hand, when the AfDs are completed. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phati'tude Literary Magazine[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced. The only references are to the organization's own web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is one of the articles in a walled garden including Gabrielle David. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. G11, (spam). CSD tag removed by Dodger67 in the mistaken believe that an article at AfD cannot be deleted because it is spam. --Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned at the articles being created by the editors surrounding 2 Leaf Press. As far as I can tell, none of them have disclosed their COI and they've been editing about this since 2012. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there to suggest that this magazine is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The magazine exists, but existing does not give notability on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to have ever been any true in-depth coverage of the magazine, nor does it appear to be indexed anywhere that would give notability on here. The article claims that it's won an award, however awards aren't something that automatically give notability on Wikipedia - you first have to show that the award is a notable one. I honestly can't find any record of the magazine winning an award and it's not named on the article or on the magazine website, so I have to assume that it's something that Wikipedia would consider non-notable. As far as the association with notable people goes, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by having an association with notable persons. I looked the magazine up in Ulrichsweb and found nothing to establish notability there either. The majority of places that mention this magazine are typically WP:PRIMARY or they're in places that Wikipedia would not consider a WP:RS, like a self-published website and the type. That this is also one of several very promotional articles written by people who appear to have a strong COI is also a concern in this situation. Since this is already at AfD I'd recommend this just running the course because if this is deleted, this will help prevent recreation, whereas a deletion for G11 would not prevent this at this point in time. I'd recommend against any merging or redirecting at this point in time given that most of the articles relating to IAAS are up for deletion in some form or fashion. If any survive deletion then a redirect could be discussed then, but not before that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much an excellent example of why it's generally a bad idea to edit with a COI and to not seek out help immediately when signing up with Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% self-sourced and no indication of how that could be fixed. Fails WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & don't use wikipedia for advertising --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the whole 2Leaf spam cluster with it - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and SNOW Delete because I myself speedied again as G11 since it's blatantly advertorial considering "the organization began to use print-on-demand services and reduced the size of the book to 8”x10”, a cost-effective way that provides the greenest option: it kills no trees, requires very little energy, never goes out of print" is by far the worst. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but an AfD close would be a more permanent solution, as technically someone can recreate a G11 article. If someone recreates an AfD'd article that's more easily speedied/deleted. I think that the only one that's not up for AfD are two pages, the publishing company and Jesús Papoleto Meléndez. That last one is the only one that might stand a chance of restoration, but even then the stuff that's happened here makes it more unlikely that it will happen unless someone gets a lot of assistance. I'd recommend that all of the pages related to 2Leaf/IAAS get salted to prevent recreation until the point comes when someone can submit a non-promotional copy that would assert notability. There's a likely possibility that there might be an attempt to restore these, given the amount of times the other promotional articles have been restored. (2Leaf Press - three times, The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS) - twice, Sean Frederick Forbes - once) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on salting the whole cluster - David Gerard (talk) 07:34, 22 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle David[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced. The only reference does not appear to refer to her in any detail. If additional sources can be found within seven days, this article can be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NOM. Article is part of a move to advertise 2Leaf Press and associated individuals by editor Rubyperl. reddogsix (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article and 2Leaf Press and related articles appear to be a walled garden. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are no actual museum collections an an artist, there's essentially nothing else close to that which suggests both substance and independent notability; examining the apparent sources finds nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by User:Rubyperl, moved from talk page - Gabrielle David is notable as the only African American women publisher in the U.S.A. She is recognized and known in the literary world for publishing renowned poets and scholars through 2Leaf Press and phati’tude Literary Magazine. I have corrected the references and external links, and have added citations as per your request. I look forward to the publication of this entry.
Comment Provide reliable sources in the article for the notability claims. Also, please discuss notability issues here rather than on deletion talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some things here and there like this that shows that she might be notable, but if there is enough out there I'd suggest that this get WP:TNT-d and started afresh by a non-COI editor. There's so much puffery and promotion in the article, along with unsourced claims, that this would pretty much need to be re-written from scratch. What makes the unsourced claims problematic is that other than it posing a BLP issue, I'm concerned about some of the vague claims in other articles, like the claims of the Phatitude magazine winning an award. Neither the magazine article or website specify what this award actually is, which means that it could be anything from something that could give notability to an award given out by a non-notable self-published blog or a vanity award. In other words, in an attempt to promote all things IAAS, the editors have actually done more harm than good because they've just ended up casting far more doubt on the veracity of the claims. I don't doubt that this might have happened in some form or fashion, but now we have to question whether or not any of the claims are getting puffed up beyond what they actually are. This is why COI editing - specifically article creation and the addition of major chunks of text - needs to be done very, very carefully. From a personal standpoint this is why I've refused some requests from people or organizations I'm familiar with, where the COI and issues (tone, COI) pose too much of a problem.

I'll see what I can find, but offhand if I find enough to suggest notability then I'll draft a copy on my own and endorse a deletion of this content, followed by the move of my draft - but that's only if I can find enough coverage. So far the related articles for the magazine and organization do not have any in-depth coverage that would establish notability for them, not even partially, so notability for Davis will likely rely on coverage for her specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched, but couldn't find anything else out there, and I used my college's database along with the other usual search options (Google, literary websites, etc). It looks like the Boston Globe was the only place that really covered anything that David was involved with. I have a strong suspicion that she'll be reading this, so my advice to her is to please not take this personally. It takes a lot and I mean a lot to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. It's harder for small authors, publishers, and organizations to pass GNG, but meeting that guideline is still a requirement and while it'd be nice if guidelines were looser, they're very unlikely to ever become as such. My recommendation is that you solicit coverage from newspapers and submit your work to various journals and websites that do reviews - academic sources are the best ones to seek out. If the publication uses a DOI and/or is a known academic publisher, that is typically the best ones to seek out because they're almost always usable to establish notability. Press releases do not give notability on here, so be careful about just putting out PR. I know that it's not as easy as calling up the New York Times and asking for coverage, but establishing notability isn't an easy task in general and in many cases getting coverage is just as much a case of luck as it is hard work or merit. I would also recommend strongly that you not make COI edits to Wikipedia because at some point repeatedly trying to add things or making things seem more impressive will backfire and backfire badly, as it can make it twice as difficult to establish notability in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much text! So reference! Wow! And yet nothing of substance. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:CSD G12 plain and simple. Also, per nomination . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmann08 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC) (Copy violation was removed) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could probably be snow closed, which I'd prefer to a speedy deletion - closing this AfD would help prevent it from being recreated in the future before it solves the issues posed here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:32, 20 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanliness Begins At 'Home' (2016 film)[edit]

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

No evidence that this YouTube film is notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability and I can't find RSes in this film. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much as I wish the makers of this 3 minute film well the article fails WP:GNG. It is also WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. If it gains some kind of fame down the road it can always be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 03:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even a single passing mention in any reliable sources. Anup [Talk] 04:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google Search brings up nothing (except for the video itself). AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 13:08, 24 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Neate[edit]

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

Only one unreliable source, non-notable person. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 14:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NACTOR in all criteria. He only played a few minor to statist roles in a few TV series and movies, none of the roles were significant. Regarding WP:GNG: There are a few 2 sentence news blurbs about him in some gossip outlets. They either deal how he got replaced after the first episode of the 160 episode show Pretty Little Liars ("12 characters who you completely forgot were recast on Pretty Little Liars") or how he briefly dated Paris Hilton (usually in a list form too, as she dated a lot of guys apparently). None of those however establish any notability per WP:GNG so he should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor. Not enough significant roles in notable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 20 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian_Ethnic_Cleansing_Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. A group with 2 known members (ever) found liable under an administrative act (a fine payment) that has since been rescinded. Section 13 is no longer part of the Canadian Human Rights Act for over 3 years. There are no more active links or references. The only call to notability is a media source referring to the case as "landmark ruling" for issuing a small fine against non-entities. It's all Kinda of moot now. At this point this entire article is about a group who never did anything put post a single message online very shortly after 9/11 WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Clearly a WP:GNG and WP:WEB fail.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving stray vote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete Not notable. A group with 2 known members (ever) found liable under an administrative act (a fine payment) that has since been rescinded. Section 13 is no longer part of the Canadian Human Rights Act for over 3 years. There are no more active links or references. The only call to notability is a media source referring to the case as "landmark ruling" for issuing a small fine against non-entities. It's all Kinda of moot now. At this point this entire article is about a group who never did anything put post a single message online very shortly after 9/11 WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 02:35, 10 September 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. Note: this is not a speedy-delete WP:CSD#G5 case, as the author was not the sock of a blocked user, and was not blocked until after he wrote it. JohnCD (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Live (2015 film)[edit]

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

Delete; subject fails WP:NFILM as well as WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to IMDB rating of the film, it has a high rating of 9.8 and one of the best rated Iraqi films on IMDB. It Should be kept, for it is an important Iraqi film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwanohalo (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC) — Jwanohalo (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of KurdoKardir (talk · contribs). [reply]

Delete ASAP: not only per Chris troutman's arguments, but also per the fact that this was made by a sock in violation of his block, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KurdoKardir/Archive. Should therefore even be listed for speedy deletion. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:08, 22 September 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. They're probably going to revoke my membership in ADW for this, but I don't see any way to close this other than keep. Most of the delete arguments are emotional, and cite no real policy to back them up.

Yes, it's true that saying that List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair existing doesn't justify this existing (i.e. WP:OSE is not a good argument). But, the three (and, I see another one is running now) AfDs for that do seem to establish a precedent. In particular, the closing statement for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure says, But the simple undisputable fact is that the sources are there, and that applies here too, in particular, the sources presented by User:Andrew Davidson. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic dross, lacking in notability, gormless minutiae bordering on original research. WWGB (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a joke, right? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Compare with List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. And the one, two, three AfD nominations, all that ended in keep. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable categorisation of Australian PMs, and nonsensical to boot: unless I've missed the time we elected a cyborg PM, all of our PMs have had at least some hair on their face - particularly the blokes before they shaved. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] WWGB (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a parliamentary beards twitter account Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All are notable Australian PMs who have had facial hair where not one pm since 1923 have had one. Also keep just like the List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. Just like there are pages of Order of service Statehood · Historical rankings · Military service · Time in office · Age · Deaths in office. so we should have a page for facial hair. the one, two, three AfD nominations, all that ended in keep. More then 20% of Australian man have facial hair so we should have a page about list of pms who have had facial hair. Nick-D said that all of our PMs have had at least some hair on their face - particularly the blokes before they shaved. But how does he know is it because there is THIS page that educated him on that matter. and Not all pms have had some hair on their face Not since 1923. NZKenny96 (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, because all humans naturally grow facial hair? Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The equivalent list for US Presidents has withstood repeated attempts to delete it because this topic is actually quite notable. It is easy to find comparable sources which cover this for the case of Australia too, e.g. Museum of Australian Democracy, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News... Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As already pointed out, every person has facial hair. It's clearly a non-defining characteristic. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete To begin with "other stuff exists" is a horrible argument. I am not convinced that the "reliable sources" provide more than trivial coverage. We would have to prove not just that people had taken note which prime ministers of Australia had and had not been clean shaven (which is really the issue), and I am not sure the fact that this article is meant to be limited to those who were not clean shaven during office has been worked out. To justify this list we would have to show that the generalized topic, and not just its specific manifestation, is worth noting. That is that there is some caring beyond trivia weather a state leader is clean shaven or not. Also, when will this stop? If Australia, than certainly we can justify List of monarchs of England and Great Britain with facial hair, although how do we deal with Edward V and others who were monarchs before they had reached poverty? Why are such sub-lists of state leaders ever justified?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. US presidents are an odd exception because their whiskers, etc. have been scrutinized by scholars. The same cannot be said of the "down" under. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content. XXN, 08:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know a lot people find this sort of stuff fascinating. It's a good example of how styles change over the years. Ksylatron. —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of "stuff" that is interesting, but we don't keep articles for that reason. Subjects have to be notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ummmm..........I don't see how this article should be kept. There might be an article about it for American Presidents, but that doesn't mean that this one should be kept either. AlphaBetaGamma^{DeltaEpsilonZeta} 13:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quirky topic, but one that, as the sources identified by Andrew D. show, has been tackled by reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, collection of indiscriminate information, not a notable topic per references in article. This is the kind of bullshit that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Sandstein 12:57, 25 September 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) 07:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brian Parra[edit]

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

There's a very mild assertion of notability here by Parra having worked with notable bands by way of promoting their gigs in his area and by his work with Camp Quest, enough to where he might barely squeak by A7 criteria. I figure that the assertion of notability is just enough to where it'd probably be a good idea to run this via a full AfD.

A search for him under his full name and under "Brian Parra" doesn't bring up enough to show that he passes WP:NBIO and as far as I can see the only sources out there are either WP:PRIMARY or not usable as far as Wikipedia is concerned, as they're either self-published or in places Wikipedia would not consider to be an independent, notability giving RS. His affiliation with the various groups doesn't seem to have translated into any true coverage for him and as notability is not inherited by him being affiliated with notable groups or people and the organizations he helped found do not appear to be notable enough for articles, I don't think he passes NBIO as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable, significant, in-depth coverage... Neutrality^talk 14:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable music promoter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 23 September 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) 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moyara Ruehsen[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 07:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 07:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using ((ping))) 07:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof with tiny citations in GS. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No indication that she meets WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cursory Google New and Google Books searches to start. Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Search results pointed out by Hmlarson need to be analyzed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources found by the searches linked above says anthing about Ruehson - they are either written by her or quote or cite her - so they can't be used to show a pass of WP:GNG, and as explained above there is no pass of WP:PROF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided above show that Ruehsen is sometimes quoted on topics related to her area of expertise, but what we're actually looking for is sources about her. None of this is a comment on the quality of Ruehsen's work, which I am sure is excellent. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment sooner, nothing here for WP:PROF, article contains nothing otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regarding what Hmlarson said, the article would need a very thorough TNT to convince me that it meets PROF or GNG. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 07:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a number of references that reinforce WP:PROF Criterion #7, including LA Times, Boston Globe, and others. Hmlarson (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that she is often published as "Moyara De Moraes Ruehsen" which has been updated in the article. Hmlarson (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just barrel-scraping. Still WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I don't see this passing WP:PROF with the sources I've seen so far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Doesn't have to pass WP:PROF, it passes WP:BASIC, she is respected and quoted for her expertise, does not need to rely solely on academic credentials. Interviews that quote or cite her ARE "significant, third-party coverage" WP:N is met. Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 28 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regilio[edit]

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

Non-notable artists. DJ and producer, but exactly what he has done is difficult to establish as with most of these articles, which typically consist of a list of remixes and a link or two (well, more than that, but I pruned the linkfarm, incl. Beatport spam). So he released one single with someone else who is supposed to be notable, D-Wayne, and he remixed two songs. Remixes are a dime a dozen, that any of his singles charted is unclear but it doesn't seem to be that way, and a search of news articles (Dutchies, get ready for Temptation Island jive and Regilio Tuur gossip) delivers nothing. In other words, not notable as an artist, not notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands no evidence of WP:MUSBIO and I can't find anything in RSes about him. If someone else can I'm willing to be convinced, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 11 September 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) 08:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 19 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewati Chetri[edit]

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

Not yet notable WP:NMODEL or WP:NACTOR. She's participated in several beauty pageants, but not won any notable ones. No substantial coverage in reliable sources, just lots of press releases, blog coverage, and a few short mentions of her being a contestant in some newspapers. Little Will (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article could be improved rather than deleted. This article can be fixed through normal editing, and it is not a candidate for AfD and moreover there are many references from reliable published sources in this article and this person is definitely notable enough to be featured in Wikipedia
Thank you.
CyberBrinda (comment) 5:36 , 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep: Although this is an English Wikipedia, and the subject may not be so notable in the US or England, this vehicles covers international subjects. I did not go through the list of references (compare to Marline Barberena) but there is more than primary coverage establishing notability. Otr500 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage of Chetri does not rise above one event coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John Pack Lambert looks like you didn't check the article and the references properly. Please don't be a serial deletionist.

CyberBrinda (comment) 05:57 , 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments: I am not a deletionist but my !vote is actually a very weak keep. I performed a little maintenance concerning references and removed the general pageant "External link". The article is referenced with a lot of primary links that borders on WP:advertising. If anything I may not have looked close enough at the references. One link that is mainly a page of other indescriminant links includes Beauty-queens-and-their-hot-bikini-looks. These type references have things like "Her flawlessly toned legs are the sexiest part of her body", and I will quick fast and in a hurry be against pageants if they are presenting girls (under aged) and even ladies, in a sexual way over beauty. Another reference includes "Chetri competed in Femina Miss India 2015 and placed in the Top 10. She also competed at the World Miss University 2016 pageant in China where she won the Miss Asia sub-title.". I am not going to support subtitles being notable and editors considering themselves "inclusionists", that seem to want (from other AFD's that I can provide) to have a position of "Everything has a place on Wikipedia", is not something I support. "IF" a subject is notable then great but it does not take wikilaywering to prove notability. Either someone is notable with multiple secondary sources (independant and not connected to the subject in any way) or they are not.

Please do not attack an editor you disagree with, because that person holds a different view on a particular subject, as this article is so border-line I am inclined to change my !vote and can very likely provide as much ammunition in support of delete as keep. Coverage of a subject, that has been a contestant in even multiple insignificant pageants, does not add to a running count towards notability. One thing this article does through references is proclaim several times that contestants are models. I !voted keep because I did see an article that was more than just a couple of lines, or a BLP with maybe two references sometimes only primary, and I nudged my thinking towards keep. I am still very much objective concerning pageant coverage on Wikipedia but will champion, as much as my verbiage will allow, that BLP's be better referenced and more than an unreferenced, under-referenced, or primary sourced referenced stubby-stubs. Otr500 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG overrides all other notability requirements (provided that it is not WP:BIO1E, which is apparently not the case here). There appears to be substantial coverage of subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, such as The Telegraph, Assam Tribune, Assam Times, UNI. Few are cited in the article; for more: click here. Anup [Talk] 03:31, 22 September 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 A1, A3 by RHaworth JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs originating in Bolivia[edit]

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

A one-item list where the same content is covered in the article listed seems to not conform to MOS:LIST and seems rather WP:FANCRUFT RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 06:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- one entry does not a list make. Appears to be fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 17 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of HBO video releases[edit]

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from the nomination statement why this wouldn't be a bona fide of member Category:Lists of films by home video label. While it's certainly non-defining to categorize films by distributor I'm not aware of any reason why this isn't a perfect valid list. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No convincing reason for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid list per WP:CSC #1. Useful for navigation. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:36, 21 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulls-Pacers rivalry[edit]

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

The Bulls/Pacers rivalry has never been very intense, compared to the Pistons, Heat and Knicks rivalries. Not much information is given in the article that couldn't be given in the main article. I'd say delete it. Bbob221 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Pacers were never good enough over a long enough time to generate a "rivalry". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since there are reliable sources affirming the rivalry, I guess it exists.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the original post. As a Bulls fan, I can safely say these teams do not have as big of a rivalry as we do with the Pistons, Heat and Knicks. In fact, it barely exists at all. This does not need it's own article. NBA2020 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Separate article not necessary, can be summed up on main page. Lots of gaps in article anyway. Politics2012 (talk) 23:42, 23 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankhuri Gidwani[edit]

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

Not yet notable WP:NMODEL: has participated in several beauty pageants, but not won any. Only passing mentions in reliable sources. Little Will (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Little Will (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - This article has been created very recently and this article could be improved rather than deleted. This article can be fixed through normal editing, and it is not a candidate for AfD. This editor "Little Will" says that she has not won any pageants. Pankhuri has won the title of "Femina Miss India Grand 2016" and she has not participated at Miss Grand International yet. What if she wins the international pageant?. It is very soon to consider this article for deletion. So, I please request to not delete this article and give some time as this article can easily be fixed by normal editing. Please don't delete this article.
CyberBrinda (comment) 5:47 , 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is over a month old, and she has not won Femina Miss India Grand 2016: the reference says she was second runner-up. Calling that a win is like saying the United States was "first runner up" in the Vietnam War. Little Will (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Will , every year the 2nd Runner up of Femina Miss India is awarded with the title "Miss Grand India" and that is considered as a win and you can't compare war with pageants. You have not so much understanding of pageantry, that is the reason you have nominated this article for deletion in the first place. For example Priyanka Chopra was "1st runner up" in Femina Miss India 2000 and she was given the title "Femina Miss World India". So according to you even that is not considered as a win? In 2015, Vartika Singh was 2nd Runner up in Femina Miss India 2015 and was awarded with title " Miss Grand India" so even that is not a win? I request to Please don't delete this article as it can be easily improved instead of deleting.
Thanking You
CyberBrinda (comment) 6:18 , 17 September 2016 (UTC)

* "Keep" - The article is based on multiple and reliable sources. It can be improved. -- Lolitartine (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

~~@Lolitartine: Multiple sources yes, but which ones do you believe are WP:Reliable sources? Little Will (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect: Another "Come on people". This is a !vote on the current subject notability and not what "might happen" in the future. She was 2nd runner up and according to the article lead "She will represent India at Miss Grand International 2016 pageant", and not "awarded with the title automatically". The 1st runner up, "Sushruthi Krishna", one would think somewhat more prestigious, does not yet even have an article. Priyadarshini Chatterjee won and we have an article on her. While I can appreciate a drive to have an article on "all things beauty pageant" Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a look at the references: #1)- indianandworldpageant.com A primary source. #2)- is not a good reference. Check it out. #3)- According to this primary advertising reference (..."possesses a pretty face complimented with a heart arresting smile. With oozing elegance and charm,...") "Pankhuri Gidwani hailing from Lucknow will now represent India at Miss Grand International 2106 pageant". "More than 90 delegates are anticipated to particpate this year.", so should we have an article on every one? #4)- is a primary source. #5)- A secondary news report is the first actual reference where she is congradulated on winning the "Campus Princess 2016 season" and "fbb Femina Miss India 2016 2nd". #6)- a blogspot states she was "2nd runner up of FBB Femina Miss India 2016". "She was crowned by the previous 2nd runner up Ms. Vartika Singh, who was crowned Femina Miss India Grand International 2015 and placed 2nd in the Miss Grand International 2015. #7)- Primary beauty pageant news, #8)- More primary source beauty pageant news about the subject winning "Campus Princess 2016 season 1". #9)- The final reference Miss Grand International 2016 Finals to be held in Las Vegas is about the location and "reigning Miss Grand International, Claire Parker (Claire Elizabeth Parker) from Australia", that does not have an article.

Conclusion: We have a lot of primary sources about a 2nd runner up that will compete in a Miss Grand International along with 80 to 90 other individuals. We are either going to have articles on everything, so I nominate my recently passed beautiful and wonderful sister, that also has at least one secondary news report, or we need to draw a line. Redirect and look at her when she is actually notable for more than one thing. Otr500 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Otr500, The 1st runner up of Femina Miss India 2016 "Sushruti Krishna" doesn't have an article in Wiki as she is not participating in any international pageants and hence is not notable. And coming to this point that more than "80 contestants" are participating in Miss Grand International, but all the contestants may not be that notable in their respective countries and hence may not have an article written on them. But Pankhuri is very notable in her country and the Chief minister of her state, Akhilesh Yadav himself visited her personally to congratulate her victory which has never happened before. And Femina Miss India is not her first pageant. She has participated in other pageants before. *"Please note that I have updated even better and reputed references in this article" and no blogs have been used in this article as a reference. She is notable to be featured in Wikipedia accordingto WP:GNG as there are many published articles written about her by reputed news agencies, and

This article can definitely be improved by WP:ATD(normal editing) instead of deleting
CyberBrinda (comment) 10:57 , 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And hello to you CyberBrinda. I am a big fan of things that are significant to a particular place that has independent coverage to prove notability. I am a proponent of BLP's being well referenced. I went thru every references and according to policy, that also includes WP:Notability#Common circumstances. In the subsection Self-promotion and publicity (WP:SPIP) it states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.", and we all know pageants are about sponsors that advertise their products. This is why we need independent sources. The subsection Events states "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.".

Your statement" "...but all the contestants may not be that notable in their respective countries and hence may not have an article written on them", while supporting inclusion of a 2nd runner up which is 3rd place, is why we have articles like Miss Gabon contestants Marie-Noëlle Ada, a thus far (since 2012) unassessed article and stub article Channa Divouvi, because the criteria for inclusion is subjective. Then look at Marilyne Nfono (currently unassessed since 2015), Maggaly Nguema, Pulchérie Nze Nzoughe, and Ruth Jennifer Ondo Mouchita, a one referenced unassessed (since 2012) stub article. These go along with articles like Cecilie Wellemberg. What do all these articles have in common? They are articles about beauty contestants that are many times BLP's, and are under referenced or referenced using one or more primary sources. Many editors argue the misapplied WP:BLP1E rather than the appropriate WP:BIO1E.

Please do not think or assume that I am on some campaign as a deletionist. In fact, if there is coverage of an individual concerning an event, and there is not enough secondary coverage for a stand alone article, I will advocate a redirect over deletion.

Here is my dilemma and where you can help.

Dilemma: Little Will stated "the reference says she was second runner-up. Calling that a win is like saying the United States was "first runner up" in the Vietnam War.", and your reply was; "every year the 2nd Runner up of Femina Miss India is awarded with the title "Miss Grand India" and that is considered as a win and you can't compare war with pageants. You have not so much understanding of pageantry, that is the reason you have nominated this article for deletion in the first place.". The Metaphor about the Vietnam War (yes a touchy subject concerning vehicles that push world peace) is about a win versus not winning. Your answer did not actually help me nor I am sure Little Will.

The help (You can help): You assert that placing 2nd or 3rd is in fact a win but neither the Femina Miss India nor the Femina Miss India 2016 actually offers any information to back this up with content that can be understood by those of us that do not understand. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding. It is a supposed goal of an encyclopedia to help others learn and understand. You apparently have some understanding more than some of us and I have already dug deeper than I wanted to. This is where a primary source can be of help. http://www.angelopedia.com/Beauty-Pageants-Info/India/Femina-Miss-India/50 gives some incite into how placing 2nd, or 3rd, is actually considered a win with the pageants so insert a middle (2nd) paragraph in "Femina Miss India" that explains the current placing and how they are advanced. Place a ((Main|Femina Miss India)) on the Femina Miss India 2016 article and tie this stuff together. There are some of us editors that have decided to "follow the rules" (if you will), that has been established by community consensus, and many go a step farther with BLP's. Many, many, many of the articles like I exampled above do not follow policies and guidelines, even when interpreted by the most lax reasoning, so there should be less "battling" to try to find exemptions and more "make improvements", merge, or delete. I know that when I see BLP articles like Cecilie Wellemberg, with only two primary references (pageantsnews.com and www.angelopedia.com.) I am appalled, yet others will advocate inclusion to the last breath. A BLP article with 20 references that are all primary especially about one event, according to current policies and guidelines, does not warrant a stand-alone article on Wikipedia and certainly not an article with only two.

WP:GNG is not a sole determining factor for article inclusion or exclusion but goes hand-in-hand with others like WP:BIO1E, WP:VERIFIABILITY, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources, WP:NMODEL, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Copyrights, as well as any I might have missed.

If 2nd runner up, means there are three winners in India, do you not agree that readers should be able to find this out without confusion? It is important enough to be in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. This might certainly be important, if the event she currently won is not really significant enough (lacking secondary coverage) to warrant a stand-alone article, especially "if" she does not win Miss Grand International 2016, as being a winner in Campus Princess 2016 does not qualify. Otr500 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Otr500, you are right, this fact should be mentioned in the main article of Femina Miss India that even placing as first Runner up or second Ru is considered as a win. You have stated this example of - [Self-promotion and publicity (WP:SPIP) it states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter". This can definitely be applied to articles like Rashi Yadav which I accept, but not this one. If you check the references of this article again, majority of the references are from reputed primary sources.

Actually both Pankhuri Gidwani - Miss India Grand and Priyadarshini Chatterjee - Miss World India are considered as having equal victories, even though Pankhuri is 2nd runner up, all the contestants who have made it to the top - 3 are considered as winners. And this same format is operational in Femina Miss India from the pageant's inception. If Priyadarshini Chatterjee is notable enough to have an article featured in Wiki, even Phankuri is actually notable to have an article as even she is considered as equal winner.

This article has many primary sources as references and this person has won Femina Miss India. This article shouldn't be deleted and this person is notable by all of Wikipedia's standards and does not violate any rules like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources, WP:NMODEL, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Copyrights. So this article should not be deleted, rather it can be improved.

CyberBrinda (comment) 12:57 , 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete she was 2nd-runner up in a beauty pageant. This is not enough to make someone notable. The coverage is routine and one event coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage. She won 2nd runner only in a national pageant and her name is already in the wiki article Femina Miss India 2016.Richie Campbell (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although she did not finish at first place makes her ineligible for inclusion per WP:NMODEL; the coverage she did receive for being a participant and thereafter and there should hopefully be more coming soon, can make a convincing case of WP:GNG. I was able to find few sources in Hindi: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].. but we need a bit more, something unrelated to Femina Miss India to bypass WP:BIO1E. Anup [Talk] 02:53, 22 September 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. This article may be notable after all, but the consensus is that the current article is completely unusable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi hackers[edit]

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

There are many "Bangaldeshi hackers" in the news, but this article is not clear how this would be a stand alone article. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 10:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR; an unreferenced essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavy overhaul of the article's content. No doubt this topic seems to be notable based on a google search, but as is the article content is unacceptable.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Per nomination. Coderzombie (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. This is such a badly written article with no fixed scope. More importantly is purely being used for promotion with the addition of all those links. Per WP:NOTPROMO this is a perfect candidate for TNT. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satpokhariya Rajputs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I get zero hits on GBooks and only 176 in the general GSearch, none of which are reliable. Nothing at JSTOR or Questia. Sitush (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure if it even exists. All hits found of web seem to be a mirror of Wikipedia article. Anup [Talk] 14:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find additional reliable sources for notability verification. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N; unclear if this subject exists. The one-sentence unreferenced essay is not helping. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 17 September 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. My decision is mainly based on the sources and their descriptions provided by Cunard which have not been questioned. This decision does not mean that a merge/redirect discussion cannot continue on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Team[edit]

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

This is an article on a book promoted of conspiracists, the only source is a conspiracist website.The article includes no independent commentary to establish the factual accuracy of any of the claims made, as would be required per WP:NPOV/WP:PARITY. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book has some academic references - Google Scholar seems to be unable to keep different editions apart, but there seem to be about 80-100 references here. Following those references, the book is (somewhat) discussed in this article by Chip Berlet. I suspect there are more sources to be found. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. ludicrous overcoverage, amounting to strong promotionalism--almost a G11; if notable, it should be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this works, but adding a comment: this book is notable and very deserving of an entry, but the current article is not good at all. I'd suggest getting a good entry, not just deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig234 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Pls see below; Original comment: Delete per WP:PROMO; not adding value to the encyclopedia at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, according to this Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread, the aforementioned conspiracy website http://www.globalresearch.ca could be reliable for establishing notability. There are also the sources mentioned by Stephan Schulz.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious problems understanding your claim about the WP:RS/N discussion. I read exactly the the opposite from it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: multiple editors on the aforementioned thread had stated that the web site is not reliable. Delete this article and be done with it :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Anderson, Jack (1973-03-06). "'Secret Team' Hits CIA 'Dirty Tricks Department'". Garden City Telegram. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  This is a 1973 book review.
2. Pinkerman, John (1973-07-23). "CIA operations criticized. The Secret Team; by L. Fletcher Prouty; Prentice Hall; 496 pages; $8.95. Reviewed By John Pinkerman". New Castle News. Copley News Service. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  This is a 1973 book review.
Here are less substantial sources about the subject:
1. Ventura, Jesse (2011-04-15). "Jesse Ventura's 6 favorite books about conspiracies". The Week. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  The Secret Team by L. Fletcher Prouty (Skyhorse, $17). This book is tremendous because Col. Prouty, who worked for special operations forces under JFK’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, reveals who really runs our government. These are the high-level bureaucrats who remain while administrations come and go, and run amok without our elected officials knowing what’s happening.
2. Steinberg, Jeffrey (1992-11-13). "Unique view of JFK assassination". Executive Intelligence Review. 19 (45). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Fletcher Prouty is known to many people as the author of The Secret Team, the mid-1970s epic history of the founding and corrupting of the post-World War II American intelligence establishment, and scores of articles on international finance and national security affairs. For a handful of cognoscenti, he is also known as an expert on railroads and the author of annual encyclopedia entries on the subject. But for millions more people around the world, Colonel Prouty is better known as "Mr. X"-the enigmatic Washington national security insider played by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's recent nationally acclaimed motion picture about the John Kennedy assassination, "JFK."
  This is a passing mention but can be used as a source in the article.
3. Carlson, Michael (2001-06-21). "Obituary: L Fletcher Prouty: US officer obsessed by the conspiracy theory of President Kennedy's assassination". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously. In it, Prouty called the CIA, and the cold war, a cover story, which had allowed elements of the military and intelligence community to work on behalf of the interests of a "high cabal" of industrialists and bankers. It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed.
  A mass-market paperback was published by Ballantine in 1974, but the book immediately became hard to find. Prouty believed it was "disappeared"; at any rate, copies remain collectors' items.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Secret Team to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I have provided two such sources.
Regarding the promotional concerns: Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, a lot of the mentions in reliable press are just brief ones, but there's probably just enough there to poke it past the notability bar; and there are probably more print sources that are not online. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for now at best as, although the listed sources above are suggestive of improvements, there are still concerns and I share thrm as they have been listed above. This would need need better evaluation to see if there is in fact enough, and to ensure there's not trivial and fluff coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect over to the author's related page, prehaps specifically L._Fletcher_Prouty#Controversial_claims or else delete this. I'm unpersuaded that short snippet references to this work count as sufficient reliable source coverage. As well, the likes of Executive Intelligence Review are in no way valid to use as references. Prouty as a human being is notable, yes, but not everything that he's written and/or said is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect -- the sources offered above are passing mentions and the book is discussed only in context of the author. I don't see independent notability here; i.e. no stand-alone reviews. Perhaps redirect (name only) to author's article, but that's about it. The content of the article is still WP:PROMO garbage; there's nothing there that's worth merging. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of the sources presented here are not substantial coverage. However, the 1973 articles from the Garden City Telegram and the New Castle News (Copley News Service) are substantial coverage. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says significant coverage in two reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability.
Lankiveil's comment that "there are probably more print sources that are not online" is supported by this quote from The Guardian obituary I linked above: "His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously."
Cunard (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I believe that the statement ("His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously") invalidates these 1970s sources as dated and not reliable. A case could be made that these sources are uncritical, and could not be used for the purpose of establishing notability at this time. Contemporary sources would make a stronger case for keeping this page as a stand-alone article, but it appears that they've not reviewed the book "seriously". In fact, they appear to dismiss the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That statement does not invalidate the two 1973 sources I've provided. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. Contemporary sources are not required.
The Guardian article noted (my bolding):
It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed.
That the book was reviewed seriously because it contained credible claims and "many of its revelations have been confirmed" does not render the 1970s sources unusable in establishing notability.
Cunard (talk) 02:27, 3 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) 07:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition Fading[edit]

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

No clear indication of notability. Blackguard 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The equivalent article in the Dutch Wikipedia has also been nominated for deletion.Mduvekot (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some sources, but there is nothing that gives any indication of influence or importance of the show. Its impact was minimal and this review says as much, finding the concept "thin". Mduvekot (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not seeing more than passing attention for this compendium exhibition (which does not inherit notability from the artists included) and hence it lacks evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 24 September 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. For now, that is. If the candidate wins the election, their article can presumably be restored but with all the promotional content removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Krishnamoorthi[edit]

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

Not-yet-notable nominee for U.S. Congress; tone is promotional and fawning, and it appears to be written by partisans of the candidate. The sourcing is weak at best. And of course, the subject is first-named throughout in the tradition of campaign literature. Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with over abundance of ext links embedded in the copy. As an unelected candidate, does not meet WP:NPOL at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not given credible references in article to meet any notability so far. Self Promotion followsWP:PROMO Light21 22:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light2021 (talk • contribs)
Delete If Krishnamoorthi wins the election he will be notable, until then he will not be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Krishnamoorthi is almost certainly going to win election in November for the 8th district, but until that happens, he is not notable enough to have his own article. After the election, most likely, this article should be restored and improved. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but revert to 2015: I don't think WP:PROMO applies here, since there are more neutral versions to revert to. If you look at the page in November 2015 before the political spammers got to it, you can see more reliable source coverage (not to mention more neutral POV) than in the current version. He might meet WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO if one looks: He was the Obama campaign's policy advisor in 2004 (Senate) and 2008 (President), and was Deputy Treasurer of Illinois for a couple of years. It should definitely be overhauled or just plain reverted to 2015, though: The current version is blatant campaign garbage. --Closeapple (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The 2015 version is MUCH better. In fact, much of the info in the 2015 article was apparently deleted, including much of the info about his roles in Obama's elections, his tenure as Deputy Treasurer of Illinois, the 2010 Illinois Comptroller race, and his 2012 Congressional campaign. I wouldn't mind keeping the article if we revert to this version. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Reasons listed above. The whole article will need to be rewritten once recreated, as it is terrible as is. ALPolitico (talk) 14:19, 23 September 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) 08:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl Irving[edit]

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

Subject may not meet WP:BIO. No reliable sources are cited, contrary to WP:RS. Viewing the page's history and talk page, it seems possible that the page has been created by a close family member, which may cause problems with WP:CONFLICT. The Parson's Cat (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone comes up with RSes - which may well exist - delete per nom - #David Gerard (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find sources to verify notability of the subject. Sources were available, but did not go into any details as to the importance of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:01, 17 September 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) 08:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Adventures of Little Ioda[edit]

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

Fails GNG, with no assertion of notability, or third party reliable sources to verify content.

The web series creator and the web company which released this as linked as external links not wikilink. The award is not the other Emmy award and the second award is from the publisher. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page, with its hallmark sign of external links in body of the article. No indications of notability or significance at this time, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Educations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no coverage in reliable sources. The page is just being used for promotion, so I advocate a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hinterstocker (ice hockey b. 1983)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHOCKEY #1, has played in Deutsche Eishockey Liga for several years. —Kusma (t·c) 11:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: look at WP:NHOCKEY/LA. The DEL can satisfy criteria #3 of NHOCKEY, which is play 200 games, which he has not done. He fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying the DEL is not a top flight professional league? Otherwise WP:NHOCKEY #1 asks for a single game in a top professional league?? —Kusma (t·c) 19:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: For the purposes of NHOCKEY, no the DEL is not considered a top professional league. Read WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Joeykai (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai: Just to clarify: you consider him non-notable because the highest level national league he played in is a professional league? According to WP:NHOCKEY #2 we would consider him notable if he had played a single game in a top tier amateur league. Do you really think top level players from countries without a professional league are more deserving of articles than top level players from Germany or Switzerland (who have higher attendances at games than Sweden, which for some miraculous reason is considered a country whose top level league is notable despite being professional)? WP:NHOCKEY does not seem to be a well thought through guideline. —Kusma (t·c) 14:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Seriously read WP:NHOCKEY/LA. "The following current and historical leagues are considered "fully professional minor leagues" – or at the caliber of the same – for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #3: .... *

Germany – Deutsche Eishockey Liga (formerly the Bundesliga) ... Joeykai (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai: I read that, and I read WP:NHOCKEY, and now I think that according to these guidelines, amateur leagues are more important than pro leagues. Maybe WP:NHOCKEY could do with some clarifying (for example the fact that "top flight professional league" means "one of the leagues in the arbitrary list on the page WP:NHOCKEY/LA that is linked only as a footnote"). That is *not* what "top flight professional league" usually means in English, where people expect it to mean "the highest level professional ice hockey league in some country". —Kusma (t·c) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if we are down to the level of wikilawyering, WP:NHOCKEY, which I use to support my argument, is a guideline, while WP:NHOCKEY/LA is only an essay. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you get that amateur leagues are more significant from the line "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant."? Given his birth year of 1983 this criteria cannot be applied to him in any way as fully professional leagues existed 70 years before his birth. Also your argument that playing in a top league in any country gives a player notability is not rational as there is a great variance in the quality of play and coverage in each country. By your argument a top league ice hockey league in China or Israel is the equivalent to a top league in Germany, and the German league is on par with the National Hockey League. Not all leagues carry the same notability in ice hockey; if you really have a problem with this then you should take up your grievance with the WikiProject. Deadman137 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my argument. My argument is that WP:NHOCKEY is poorly written, and from the combination of WP:NHOCKEY/LA and WP:NHOCKEY #2 and #3 I get what I said before. Really, if WP:NHOCKEY/LA is part of WP:NHOCKEY #1, it should be spelled out explicitly, because it really does not say what you think it means. —Kusma (t·c) 09:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been gone over in many discussions by many editors. I think you just don't understand what it means. You are equating top level in a specific country with top level over all. In countries where there isn't a pro league there is still a top level professional league in other countries they could be playing in. We aren't restricting to their home countries. As for it being spelled out explicitly, it is. There is a link right in NHOCKEY saying go look at this big list (which is too big to include there) to see exactly what we mean by things like top league. While the list is an essay, because the guideline of NHOCKEY says to use it, it is essentially a guideline. You also appear to be equating attendance and quality of play with notability which doesn't play into notability on Wikipedia at all. In order to be notable on Wikipedia you need to have been written about significantly in multiple sources. NHOCKEY and the other NSPORTS guidelines are written so that their requirements should almost 99.999% guarantee a player that meets it has been written about enough to meet WP:GNG. That cannot be said about every player who played a single game in the DEL no matter how much you try to argue it I can find hundreds of 1 game players in the DEL that do not meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if anyone is looking for sources: this is made complicated because not only his father Martin Hinterstocker (ice hockey, born 1954) was a professional ice hockey player, but also his cousin Martin Hinterstocker (ice hockey, born 1989) is one. See e.g. this. As for further notability, this particular Martin also played sort of internationally in the 2008 Spengler Cup. —Kusma (t·c) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joeykai Seasider91 (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He falls just short of the needed games played total and he fails the WP:GNG as well. Deadman137 (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
((ping}Deadman137)) No, he doesn't fall short of needed games played. Apart from my argument that he meets WP:NHOCKEY #1, he definitely meets WP:NHOCKEY #3, having played 287 games in the 2nd Bundesliga (ice hockey), see de:Martin Hinterstocker junior. —Kusma (t·c) 09:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No he actually doesn't. As has been pointed out to you he hasn't played in a league that meets #1 and the 2nd Bundesliga (ice hockey) does not meet #3, if you look at that list if his games are in that league he would have to meet #4. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to clarify WP:NHOCKEY by providing a warning about the definitions. —Kusma (t·c) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and as far as I can find he also fails WP:GNG. Even if he did meet any of NHOCKEY guidelines he appears to fail GNG which overrides anything NHOCKEY says anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand subject-specific notability guidelines. —Kusma (t·c) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do, I am heavily involved in subject-specific guidelines. NSPORTS even has an FAQ on the page for the exact purpose of dispelling the common misunderstanding you have. I will quote The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. (bolding mine) -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that is what the guidelines say. It is not in my experience how they are usually applied. Especially in sports AfDs, I typically see a pass/fail of the arbitrary criteria in some guideline (for an ice hockey example, 1 game in the Swedish pro league is considered evidence of notability, while 199 games in the German pro league are not) applied as a shortcut for the discussion. Admittedly I participate in sports AfDs only once per year or so and may have missed some changes. But then, I can still remember when we did not consider all pro football (soccer) players to be notable (WP:NFOOTY, by the way, seems to be much clearer than WP:NHOCKEY), and it seems to me that the move to a more inclusive approach that has taken place there would make sense also in ice hockey. But I am probably wrong, as usual. —Kusma (t·c) 15:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah footy project still uses the "fully professional" model where any player in any league that pays a living wage meets it, which was largely abandoned by most if not all other sports when WP:ATHLETE was deprecated and changed to WP:NSPORTS. Many people have tried to get them to actually change off that model because it is easy to show that it shouldn't be the case, but they always have enough supporters to push back on that change probably due to being a much more popular sport. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 23 September 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) 07:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One on ABC[edit]

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

Nothing but a summary of which F1 races has ever televised. No sources at all. No independent notability. Not for wikipedia T v x1 15:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This was not a true TV series, but for most of the period described in the article, just the subject of episodes of Wide World of Sports (U.S. TV series) on average less than twice a year. Possibly some of this information could be moved to List of Formula One broadcasters#United States to indicate how F1 used to be shown on U.S. television. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also per nom. In the overall context of F1, very few races seem to have been broadcast. There is little or nothing to indicate anything worthy of note and also no references. Eagleash (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As stated above, not a series and this is a clear example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 04:44, 25 September 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Kapoor[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC due to lack of reliable sources Marvellous Spider-Man 17:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more likely that the organisation is notable than Kapoor herself, so maybe it would be best if this was refactored as an article about Sayfty rather than its founder. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - additional reliable sources added; article cleaned up. Needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Looks like there may be just enough to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per available sources. Appears to be somewhat notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 20 September 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) 07:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Little[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor running for Minnesota Senate Meatsgains (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At a population of right around 50K, Lakeville is just barely large enough that a mayor could be considered notable if his article was well-sourced. But this is relying much more on raw tables of election results, press releases on the web pages of institutions, and blogs than it is on real reliable source coverage -- and the reliable source coverage that is present is the WP:ROUTINE depth and volume of local coverage that all mayors would be expected to receive in their local media. And candidates don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, either, but are eligible for articles only if (a) either they can be properly demonstrated as already passing a notability criterion before they became candidates, or (b) they win the seat at the end of the campaign, and thereby become actual officeholders rather than mere candidates. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is substantive enough or sourced well enough to make him already eligible for a Wikipedia article now. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 September 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. Sock votes don't count, otherwise there seem to be fair arguments both for and against notability, with no clearly preponderant opinion emerging despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Kolm[edit]

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

has written nothing notable and received no major awards. Article largely uncited and even if it was doesn't contain enough to meet WP:AUTHOR LibStar (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richarddev has left this identical comment in multiple irrelevant AfDs. There are no reversions of page-blanking in his recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck content above posted by a user indefinitely blocked for socking, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - the RSes present and the fact that a university took on his papers strongly suggests prima facie notability, though the article could do with better sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 17 September 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) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Lulka[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving as a school board trustee. This is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL -- but all we have here for sourcing is the purely WP:ROUTINE level of purely local election coverage that a school board trustee would be expected to receive -- so nothing here suggests that she's more notable than the norm, which is the standard that a school board trustee has to meet to get a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Hi, I have a couple of questions for you:

on "This is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL" - does this also apply to city councillors? So a newly elected city councillor shouldn't get a wikipedia page just based on election coverage?
on "sourcing is the purely WP:ROUTINE level of purely local election coverage that a school board trustee would be expected to receive" the WP:ROUTINE doesn't mention election coverage as something routine. So where is this bar that separates routine from not routine?
Also someone becoming school board trustee would get less news coverage, but in this case what was newsworthy was the fact that she was a rookie who wan against an established "brand" a family of local politicians.

02:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

City councillors in most cities are not eligible for Wikipedia articles at all, except in major internationally famous global cities (of which Toronto is one, so if you were planning to point to the articles about Toronto city councillors then don't try.) And school trustees, even in major internationally famous global cities, are notable only if you can demonstrate that they are individually far more notable than the norm for some substantive reason. If a political office does not pass NPOL, then election coverage is WP:ROUTINE — because all elections, even to school boards, always generate local news coverage in their local media, the existence of that coverage does not confer a WP:GNG pass if the office they were elected to hasn't passed WP:NPOL.

The only ways a school board trustee can become notable enough to have a Wikipedia article are (a) the coverage nationalizes into something way beyond the bounds of the purely local (e.g. she becomes so prominent that she starts getting coverage in the Vancouver Sun or the Calgary Herald), (b) the coverage volumizes to the point where you could write or source at least a small novel about her, or (c) she subsequently goes on to get elected to an office that does pass NPOL, such as Toronto City Council or the provincial legislature or the federal House of Commons. "Rookie who won against a candidate with a more prominent family name" is not a reason in and of itself why a school board trustee gets an article. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete District school board trustees are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:POLITICIAN, a fairly minor city level political office, only local coverage, and not even much of that. Nsk92 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 23 September 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. In spite of some well meaning efforts to improve the article, the consensus is clearly to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Medi Musik[edit]

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

plain advertising The Banner talk 21:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Banner, can you please tell me how it is advertising I have changed the text a lot now. I don't have any COI so I am not trying to advertise

Jalexlb (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it simply states the facts. There might be room for improvement but it certainly doesn't have to be deleted. The Banner what exactly is your problem here? --Fixuture (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I am confused because this page now after the edits merely lists what its style is and the notable artists it has released that contribute to its notability as a label. Jalexlb (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me sad that you are unable to recognize an unsourced complete record catalogue. The Banner talk 19:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, it is sourced now. Jalexlb (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC

Great, so it is a copyrights violation... The Banner talk 23:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @The Banner: This is exactly the behaviour that drives away newcomers to Wikipedia. That guy put work into creating a new Wikipedia article so be thankful! I'm always confounded of the unfriendliness of editors here. Don't you notice this yourself? For the alleged "copyrights violation" - where exactly does it say that record catalogs are copyrighted? It makes no sense as these are just factual lists. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the terms of discogs technically state that this kind of use would be ok as they technically have no right over the information as it is just the label's catalogue numbers and release names hence why there are exact copies here ^[1] and here ^[2] and here. It would only be an infringement if we were using the listings of discogs sellers, or somehow using the info for profit. However if need be, I shall edit the article to instead show a roster of artists.

Jalexlb (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just copying to reignite the discussion but:

Actually the terms of discogs technically state that this kind of use would be ok as they technically have no right over the information as it is just the label's catalogue numbers and release names hence why there are exact copies here ^[3] and here ^[4] and here. It would only be an infringement if we were using the listings of discogs sellers, or somehow using the info for profit. HOWEVER if need be, I shall edit the article to instead show a roster of artists. Would that be a better solution

Jalexlb (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete per WP:PROMO. The article largely consists of a list of recording that the label issued, making it a WP:DIRECTORY, which is an additional rationale for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @K.e.coffman: If there's truly a problem with that just remove that recording list instead of having the whole article deleted. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that and some other things, so now there is no longer a list of recordings. It is a notable label as shown in the sources

Jalexlb (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. The best I found are some trivial mentions on some newsblogs. I don't see any indication that this is a significance record label. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Lemongirl942: It is one of the most influential labels in the UK dubstep scene. Music labels typically aren't the center of medial attention but there#s enough coverage anyway (e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Another showcase of this label's notability are the 43k likes of its facebook page. It would be more than biased to delete it. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there are reviews, some of which are full length on big music sites, it is definitely significant to dubstep's history. If it wasn't significant, these big music sites and magazines such as NME and Pitchfork would not be covering it. ^[1]^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

Also special note that they describe the label in Mixmag as 'treasured' ^[7]

Jalexlb (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment: Fixuture, Jalexlb, a couple of points – firstly, Wikipedia doesn't recognise blogs as reliable independent sources. Secondly, while there are certainly some big names like Skream and James Blake with connections to the label, that and the interviews with artists on the label doesn't necessarily make the label itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:INHERITORG which states that notability of a company isn't conferred by association with notable people. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NME and Mixmag aren't 'blogs' they are massive magazines, as is shown by the fact they have their own wikipedia pages. Jalexlb (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but you haven't referenced NME or Mixmag anywhere in the article, and have instead used blogs such as drumsofthesouth.com. I was talking about the article as it stands. And they are not articles about the label, they are articles about albums – again, please read WP:INHERITORG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also uses a scientific journal in which deep medi is mentioned, also the documentary bassweight which was on the bbc, and many other notable sources. Also those albums were notable BECAUSE they were on Deep Medi, not the other way round. Also there is the vice feature on the history of dubstep which talks about deep medi. There are many sources I have shown on the talk page and the article which show its notability.

Also what about mixmag calling it treasured, it is from a reliable source and it talks about the label? Also labels are literally only about who they sign because music is how labels get well known, You could say therefore that Mala, a notable musician running it may not be enough on its own through that rule but the music is the very fabric of every label and with that, no labels would be notable because they would only be inhereting notability through releases.

Jalexlb (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if you actually added them to the article rather than just listing them here or on the talk page, you would have a better chance of seeing the article kept – as it stands it has almost no reliable sources. You talk about a "scientific journal" and BBC documentary, and yet you haven't added any of them as references, so we have absolutely no proof of verifiability so far. I know the Guardian blog *talks* about the documentary, but there's no proof in the article that Deep Medi are mentioned. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: I added it, so now the journal is there in the references and I think that helps the cause. Jalexlb (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have quite a view verifiable sources actually Jalexlb (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, would you mind pointing out which one is the scientific journal, please? Richard3120 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] This one, its in the journal of electronic dance music Jalexlb (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK, although it's really just a review by some teacher of the same BBC documentary that mentions Deep Medi in passing in the wider context of the dubstep scene. Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why do you think they chose Deep Medi out of any dubstep record label, because it is literally the most significant in the scene, they wouldn't have chosen it otherwise as one of the ones to talk about. Mixmag wouldn't have called it treasured, and its most recent release topper top by Sir Spyro wouldn't be currently at around 100 in the itunes chart despite dubstep supposedly having already had its best days behind it. Also it wasn't an in passing mention. A large part of the documentary is filmed about/ around a Deep Medi night

Jalexlb (talk) 18:46, 30 September 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) 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Reehaan[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician and dancer, poorly sourced and leaning heavily on advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone. The only sources here are a YouTube video (not a reliable source) and a single article in a music magazine which describes itself on its own website as a promotional platform for member musicians -- which makes it a primary source that also cannot assist notability. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his existence can be verified on social media -- it takes reliable source coverage in media, verifying passage of a specific notability criterion, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find secondary reliable sources to verify the notability of the subject. I could only find Facebook Twitter Youtube, Google+ and a few music websites like Soundcloud. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly autobiographical promotional article with no good sourcing. Richard3120 (talk) 17:50, 22 September 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) 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual filing cabinet[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable product. Has already had a prod declined, hence AfD. Tagishsimon (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two of the three sources are press releases that say right on the page they're user-generated - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, seems like one of many projects that did not last through the recession that came fairly quickly after it. It looks like the company now sells something called InfoFlow, but that also does not seem to meet notability thresholds. W Nowicki (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. History shows article created by SPA with no other edits in the past 8 years. Clearly COI/promotional intent. MB 17:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "corporate spam"; nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 22 September 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) 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hartslane[edit]

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

Page reads like a puff piece and subject lacks significant notability Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - clearly promotional article with refs that don't evidence notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO as obvious corporate spam with language such as "...dedicated to delivering a cutting edge cultural programme..." and plethora of ext link in the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 23 September 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. Euryalus (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayem Sobhan Anvir[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG. Only a few passing mention available on the web. Mar11 (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article mentions a Congressional Certificate of Recognition presented by a Charge d'Affaires from the US embassy. I've been unable to determine how many such recognitions are issued annually, but about 20,000 are given every year to high schoolers who participate in an art contest, and that's just one way they're used. It seems to be a glorified thank you letter handed out like candy. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Probably, this article was written by the subject himself. The user talk page of the creator contains a descriptive promotional article about the person. Link The contributor had only contributed to the articles related to Bashundhara Group. - Mar11 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Full of advertising and promotional content. Creator is not a Wikipedia contributor. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 09:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
week Keep appears to be notable as the Managing director of a major Bangladeshi conglomerate, chairman of a sports club and per sources available.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Managing director of a company it not a measure of notability to keep this. There are on WP:NPOV. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; a vanity page with no indications of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet GNG and as stated, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion..." Kierzek (talk) 13:07, 20 September 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 Delete after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estin & Co[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom, no independent coverage in RS found. Article created by SPA with only three edits to this article.MB 02:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The magazines, radio and TV sources are reliable and well-known, though in France, maybe not in the US. Does this help? I remember seeing the company featured on Bloomberg TV in France some years ago. Would finding the video (YouTube?) help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank201512345 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 September 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 appears that the article cannot stay due to lack of notability, there is no consensus on a merger or redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Gathering 2007[edit]

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

Unsourced year version of a festival not even mentioned in the article (Global Gathering). Some spamming too. Seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page clearly shows the reference to Global_Gathering_2007, this is a valid article should not be deleted. End. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.69.122 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An external link is not a source. Beside that: sources should be independent, conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 18:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Global Gathering. Individual editions of festivals are rarely notable outside of the overall context of the festival - there's likely nothing that can said about this particular festival apart from that year's line-up, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a listings directory. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual annual events of this sort are not notable. No point in redirecting--anyone would look in the main article. And the details of the event probably do not not belong there either because they are promotional.. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking third party significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 23 September 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Ghana[edit]

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

Page appears to be a WP:COATRACK Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's in a lousy state, but the topic is definitely notable.[16][17][18] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has good sources it just needs further expansion. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is clearly notable based on sources provided by Clarityfiend. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a topic on national cinema in a particular country. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An inherently notable topic: virtually every country is going to have a national-level Cinema of Foo article at the very least. I also don't agree that this is could be deleted for COAT as several different people in the Ghanaian film sector are mentioned -- if one shouldn't be there, just remove the offending text.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 20 September 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Mainardi[edit]

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

I think she doesn't meet notability criteria. Melaen (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I believe the subject is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Here's one review of Art and Politics of the Second Empire, Yale University Press, by Mainardi: link. Mainardi has written a number of other books, such as Husbands, Wives, and Lovers: Marriage and Its Discontents in Nineteenth-century France, also from Yale University Press. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Ordre des Palmes Académiques award together with the Charles Rufus Morey Book Award from the College Art Association (I added ref and info to the article about that one), and evidence that she has delivered prestigious named lecture series (e.g. this one here[19]), has at least two journal editorships (I added info and refs), and the fact that she was a President of the Association of Historians of Nineteenth-Century Art is already more than enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 without even digging further. Just makes one wish that scholars in humanities could put together their CVs as well and as effectively as, say, those in engineering. Would certainly make our life here a lot easier. Nsk92 (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per prev two responders comments and impressive Google Scholar results. Gab4gab (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 20 September 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ugly[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NALBUM, no charting, etc. Sourced only to a single forum site. This is also the same text that got deleted at PROD last month. I'm entirely willing to be convinced, but the primary contributor has been pointed at WP:RS a number of times. There seem to just be no good sources for this record. David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM, and as it's only released via mail order through the record company's own website shop, it's unlikely to ever pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:10, 17 September 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 Raghuraj Pratap Singh. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE (or the redirect equivalent thereof) given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Pratap Singh (Bhadri)[edit]

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

Not notable. Unreferenced. Does not pass WP:BIO Jethwarp (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments' - the citation given in article are only for news of him being jailed for perpetrator of riots along with his son Raja Bhaiya. His individual notability apart from that he is father of Raja Bhaiya is zero. Please see WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. Also being in jail is not a crime untill proved in court hence am removing those references also as per WP:BLPCRIME. -- Jethwarp (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raghuraj Pratap Singh. Anup [Talk] 18:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:17, 17 September 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.