< 27 April 29 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Jay[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG. The references are simply listings and advertisements for the musician. Lacks third-party sources MassiveYR ♠ 23:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy_"Mama"_Reinhardt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sandy_"Mama"_Reinhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject seems to fail to meet notability criteria and article does not make clear assertion of subject's notability. BodaciousTattvas (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article does indeed appear to meet the bar of WP:MUSICBIO, to which even the nominator agrees in discussion below. The article does need a bit of cleanup to remove some unsourced info. A Traintalk 10:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Jean Johnson (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Johnson is a backup and session singer who has had some minor success, but not to the level that rises to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Claims that Johnson was nominated for a Grammy are not supported by reliable sources (and a nomination, without a win, would not meet the criteria anyway). Claims that her "work on [ Sandra Crouch's] album subsequently won the Grammy for Best Gospel Performance, Female" can also not be verified. (Crouch did win the Grammy; what is unverifiable is whether any credit for that win can go to Johnson.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, WikiDan is correct that it doesn't seem that this person was, at least according to what I call a reliable source. Unless one is offered I would say delete as not meeting the notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is a Grammy nominated singer here https://books.google.com/books?id=tDYftTBTFyEC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&source=bl&ots=eX0yfzcF5X&sig=9k0mYxyfFb1zQICQYDcAtKrOJcs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizodbQyLPTAhWFilQKHflwADUQ6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false


Or what about the ever so popular Jet magazine. Oh wait u may be skeptical of them too - here -'

And here is bill board official newspaper sir https://books.google.com/books?id=ACQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT63&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmemZz7PTAhUJ64MKHcUDDjoQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyonne TalentSupporter1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Billboard magazine linked to above this post, and I did barely make Johnson's name out(under 'Best Soul Gospel Vocal Performance by a duo, group, choir, or chorus'). I'll leave it to others to decide if that is sufficient or not, but it does seem to be there. That doesn't change the other issues with the article itself, as described by Walter above. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Here is another article- you would be able to see it if u just hit the zoom in button on google as they put it there for that reason. Here is Jet magazine where she was projected to win... https://books.google.com/books?id=NrMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA58&dq=jean+johnson+completely+yes+jet&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVx7ip4bPTAhXIqlQKHS4zAzkQ6AEIGjAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyonne TalentSupporter1 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At best, we have a singer who was co-nominated, but did not win, a Grammy for a single album. Under WP:BLP1E, I'd say that we might allow a redirect to the Sandra Crouch article, with a mention of Johnson's name as co-nominee for Completely Yes. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


- @WikiDan61: it clearly says official Grammy nominations- you are just being difficult. You are an expert in reading so why can't you see that. I clearly see your point. She was nominated period. maybe if her last name was Streisand she wouldn't have this problem. Even sag Aftra recognizes her as such. https://books.google.com/books?id=ACQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT63&dq=jean+johnson+and+sandra+crouch+grammy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmemZz7PTAhUJ64MKHcUDDjoQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=jean%20johnson%20and%20sandra%20crouch%20grammy&f=false

@WikiDan61: Are you blind!?! It says in big bold letters 28th annual Grammy awards final nominations. Get real. You should just retire and get off here. She was nominated whether you like it or not and it constitutes a notable person page. Sorry Charley. She was one of the few blacks that broke pass that wall your people put up :)

Please stop with the baseless racism accusations. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Keyonne TalentSupporter1: I'm tapping out here. I've made my points. You've made yours. Any further debate between us would just lead to anger. Let's let others discuss. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 23:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: As I state above, the notability criteria states that being nominated is sufficient for notability. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was initially some confusion as to whether this person was nominated, but it has now been cleared up. I can't speak for others, but consider me a 'keep' now. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you probably should strike your delete !vote then. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will, though my delete opinion was conditioned on a lack of further information. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Sánchez De Felipe[edit]

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

Youth academy player without a top-level appearance. Fails WP:NFOOTY. May just be too soon for an article, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ala Qubbaj[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. His biography seems typical of any university administrator or professor, with no claims to notability. I found no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources in the article are weak; they're primary, associated with the subject, or don't support the article's claims. Pburka (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X Sharp[edit]

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

Lacks even a single reliable source to establish anything whatsoever, never mind notability. Googling and searching also at Amazon, I expected but was not even able to find the usual how-to programming books on the topic. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources have since been added, but all are primary and/or self-published as discussed below, still leaving us with nothing to establish WP:Notability under WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The X# the deletion proposal above is referring to is a new project that does not bear any resemblance to the programming language that is the subject of this article. I am of the opinion that the overall structure of the article is good and provides basic information on the characteristics of the language, which is useful not only for the developers looking up the language for the first time.
I have notified the COSMOS developers.
FrewCen (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not "notify" anyone. That's called WP:CANVASSING. What's needed to keep the article are reliable sources discussing the topic in detail. I don't believe those sources exist and without the sources to demonstrate notability, the article must go, no matter how "useful". For more on how to contribute to an AfD, please read WP:AFD and WP:ATA. Msnicki (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe that there are reliable sources discussing X# in detail. What about the official source code I mentioned above, which defines exactly how the language behaves? There is nothing more reliable and descriptive when it comes to computer programs. I consider it to be a bit strange to point out to a lack of sources and simultaneously categorize calling in the X# developers as canvassing, since it's them who, if no one else, could provide those sources.
Let us turn this constructive - since it has already been proven that X# is a thing while not being related to xBase, and that this article is based on the publicly-available source code, I think that the description "Unable to find sources" doesn't mirror any current problem. What further action would need to be taken in order to emphasize this fact (e. g. adding citations, more pointers to the COSMOS article...)?
FrewCen (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had hoped you'd read the sections of our guidelines to which I provided links. To establish notability requires multiple independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail in reliable sources with reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Each of those words means something here on Wikipedia, as explained in WP:GNG. Basically, the essence of notability is that other people not connected to the subject must discuss it in depth and do it in reliable sources. You don't have that. The code for X# was (obviously) written by the people who invented it. That makes it WP:PRIMARY, meaning it does not contribute to notability. Msnicki (talk)
https://github.com/CosmosOS/Cosmos/tree/master/source/XSharp.Compiler
Let me know if you need anything to avoid the deletion of the article.
P.S. The other X# is using the same name but it is not the same thing.
FanoI (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that FanoI (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Firstly, this deletion discussion is about the Cosmos component, not the xBase library. I simply brought that up as the xBase library appears to be better known, and I didn't want people to confuse the two. Secondly, nobody is disputing that X# exists. Finally, please review WP:GNG. If X# hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (e.g. books, academic journals, magazines) then it's not notable by Wikipedia's standards. It might become notable in the future, but it's not there yet. Pburka (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: when challenging deletion, many editors try to find other articles on Wikipedia which they feel are similar to the one nominated for deletion, and say "what about these pages?". Please review WP:OTHERSTUFF before following that path. If you want this article to be kept, the surest route is to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, per the policies at WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We put a lot of effort on write this page in the hope too to get more interest on Cosmos and X# itself if you remove it this chance is lost (and so the fact that there are not external sources regarding X# will aggravate), if you want to open the article on the other X# cannot simply add a disambiguation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanoI (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/On-NET/Chad-Z-Hower-aka-Kudzu-Cosmos
  2. ^ https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/220076/Csharp-Open-Source-Managed-Operating-System-Intro
Your first source is an WP:INTERVIEW with the the developer talking about his own stuff. That makes it WP:PRIMARY. Your second source appears to be a blog on a WP:USERGENERATED site. That's secondary, but it's not WP:RELIABLE. Neither of these count toward WP:Notability. Re: your other arguments, please consider the advice at WP:HARDWORK, WP:PLEASEDONT and WP:VALINFO. Then read WP:GNG. We have a fairly technical set of guidelines by which we decide whether to keep pages, so it's helpful to familiarize yourself with those guidelines when formulating your arguments at an AfD. Msnicki (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Nusinow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF (nor is his skateboarding notable). While his work is interesting, there's no indication that he's more notable than the average scientist. The article may be autobiographical, as it includes details about his personal life and influences which aren't apparent in the sources. Pburka (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squares in Minsk[edit]

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

Indiscriminate, seemingly irrelevant small list. No explanation on notability. Other issues as well. South Nashua (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Potentially could become notable some day, but right now consensus agrees that is not right now. Can be restored at WP:DRV should that day arrive. — foxj 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Stamper Brown[edit]

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

The subject appears to fail the criteria at the relevant notability guideline, WP:JOURNALIST. VQuakr (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol
  2. ^ http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/326270/
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is wise to consider that WP loses credibility if bias (left or right wing) influences deletion decisions. Wikimeeeeeee (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)— Wikimeeeeeee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dlohcierekim 16:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimeeeeeee:Doubt Wikipedia has any credibility to lose, as I am constantly told how unreliable it is. We discarded google-count or # of G-hits as a measure of notability a decade ago. Dlohcierekim 02:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon TTT Michaels[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiren Chandra Nath[edit]

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

Only claim of notability is being police commissioner of a large city. That's not sufficient per WP:POLITICIAN, the closest specific WP:BIO I could find. Refs seem typical for a non-elected less-than-state-level position, and nothing beyond having this position. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ethereal Plane[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation, after searching for RSes it appears to have no coverage at all. Fails GNG and NFILM. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as the Keep votes have visibly shown this in fact satisfies the applied notability standards here, WP:PROF, and that's what it takes for acceptance; any concerns about primary sources is not applicable by WP:PROF nor relevant, and there is no current promotionalism nor have any evident signs been shown to support this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Smagorinsky[edit]

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

The subject of this WP:BLP lacks WP:N. It's mostly developed by the subject or people related to him and doesn't meet WP:NPOV criteria. Distinguished professor is an internal recognition at The University of Georgia. Wikieditor1332 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I did close this as "delete", but according to @Necrothesp: being an "internal recognition" does not exempt "distinguished professor" status from WP:NACADEMIC inclusion criteria. So, relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giant of Hillsboro Bay[edit]

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

The sources provides do not meet the requirements for reliability as discussed at WP:RS. Even so, the sources provided do not appear to mention the "Giant of Hillsboro Bay". VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the giant skeleton article was published in like 50 newspapers over 5 years, been on television program "In Search of Giants" etc...would you feel better if the page was called Tampa Giant Skeleton? I thought the most interesting part was the legend that I heard at the folktale festival and only could find the angel fire source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp142 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that a page about the "Tampa giants" (or similar title) would certainly be appropriate, if it were carefully sourced. It could discuss the initial reports, reactions, and the subsequent debunking. However everything would need to be supported by references to WP:reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a related article suggesting that the giant is just a mythic Tampa Tribune a few years ago.... http://www.tbo.com/lifestyle/dont-be-fooled-by-these-old-tampa-myths-387168 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fp142 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fp142: we do understand it is a folk tale; that is not why we are discussing the idea of deleting it. You mention "50 newspapers" above, but I get 0 hits on Google newspapers. VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two relists and no further arguments made to delete, there appears to be no great urgency on the part of the community to remove this article. A Traintalk 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Specialised Translation[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. None of the databases in which the journal claims to be indexed are selective, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "MLA is the most selective index in the field". However, examination of the MLA website makes it clear that this index strives for comprehensiveness within its subject, so that it i snot a selective index in the sense of NJournals. Therefore, PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Specialized translation is a very small specialization. It would be amazing if such a small field would be served by multiple journals. The list you link to, "is open for editing; please feel free to add or correct details" and seems to be an exhaustive list of journals in the field of translation studies. Neither of your comments seems to indicate any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the page links to another list that is "open for editing". StAnselm (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:GHITS? And are you proposing that for journals in niche fields we should "not be bothered" with any considerations of notability (or even independent sources)? And if some editor lets something slip through AFC, that means we have to waive all our usual requirements? (You apparently don't see the AFC-cleared articles that I sometimes see...) You can't be serious. --Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with GHITS in principle, but as regards modern-day academic publishing I venture to say there is a direct correlation between influence (and therefore notability) of an online academic journal and its online presence. If a journal is widely quoted in a number of independent online sources, then we get a hint it may be notable. Do you work in the field of specialised translation? I guess not. Me neither. @StAnselm: above pointed to a published academic book (WP:SECONDARY) that clearly says this journal is an important one in its field. Me, then, I pointed to how widely it is linked to. See, we have been editing on the same subjects for a long time, so I am not going to fight nails and teeth about this article, but in all fairness I think you are mixing up a well-established, 13-years-old journal resulting from international co-operation of several state universities in Europe, albeit in a niche field, with some local initiatives of yesteryear we come across too many. — kashmiri TALK 09:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This article is 99% promotional nonsense. That said, I'm not thrilled about deleting it. Aside from the obvious systemic bias concerns, I think it is not unreasonable to argue that appearing on the Forbes 30 Under 30 List passes the bar of the general notability guideline, however modestly. That said, no editors have seen fit to make such an argument in the discussion below. Combined with the obvious promotional nature of the article (which even includes dates for future speaking engagements), I think it is entirely within policy to delete. No prejudice against the article re-eappearing with a more modest length and encyclopedic tone. A Traintalk 10:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Obinwanne Okeke[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy request on this as IMO it's not irredeemable spam, and there do appear to be some sources out there. However, I'm not convinced this is actually salvageable, so bringing it here for further opinions. Procedural AfD so I abstain.  ‑ Iridescent 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Gel[edit]

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

Irreparable failure to meet GNG as its manufacturer also fails. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zakaria Boulahia[edit]

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

Not notable. Burning Pillar (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Vacancy (OneRepublic song)[edit]

No Vacancy (OneRepublic song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a song released today. The only sources I could find were mentions in a couple of blogs. Fails WP:NSONG. - MrX 18:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - new single by a very notable band. Jdcomix (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is NOTINHERITED. - MrX 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't press you much on this, since there's clearly no consensus for either of the stances you mention, but really? Do you really consider a Billboard article a propaganda campaign? Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unais vt[edit]

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

Minimal coverage from secondary sources. Only references appear to be from a blog. Blackguard 17:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...And I've re-added the AFD template someone took down. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A particularly sound argument by User:Ravenswing. A Traintalk 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers[edit]

List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory on people commentating on sports games. Tvx1 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


That's an incredibly naive and shallow statement. You're in effect, devaluing the contributions of the respective sports commentators (by that logic, why should we delve deep into such a thing in the first place) and the networks at hand to have broadcast major events like the Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, etc. Whether you like it or not, a broadcast (whether it be radio or television) of such an event, is incredibly vital and important to the mass viewing or listening public (especially to those who can't afford to be at the games in person) There are many other various lists that detail/document the historical account of specific entertainment occurrences and the like. In effect, it's just one factor (albeit an important or crucial one none the less) of a much broader spectrum or scope. BornonJune8 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some examples of these lists? It sounds like some of them may be candidates for deletion under WP:NOTDIR. LAroboGuy (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We would quite frankly and simply quickly enter a sort of "slippery slope" territory or perspective if you were to go that particular route! And since I've already been through this sort of thing before, rather than try come up with a quite lengthy retort, here's what I said in better detail (to just give you some better "food for thought") in regards to TVx1's own suggestions/argument several months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ESPN_College_Football_on_ABC_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Monday_Night_Football_results_(1990%E2%80%932009)

BornonJune8 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bare in mind that this article was created in the first place, as a "compromise of sorts" for a deleted template on the same subject. I know that I'm not going to immediately sway your opinion into my own favor, but I none the less, feel that somebody should give more time to consider something somebody else said before quickly jumping to conclusions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_9#Template:American_Stanley_Cup_Finals_television_announcers BornonJune8 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons this article was created are, frankly, irrelevant. The only thing that matters is, does this article meet notability guidelines set out in WP:LISTN? Has this list been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? It has not. It also falls squarely in the descriptions of "What Wikipedia is not". Therefore, delete. LAroboGuy (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even create that particular article in the first place, so don't entirely lay it on me if you have such a major issue with it. And yes, I've been trying to "supplement" or flesh out (including sources to "back it up") the article by giving a greater detail for the corresponding lists. It isn't purely a simple "list" per se as it is a point-by-point television broadcasting historical documentation (hence the added material that I just mentioned). There are various statistical lists (for the players) regarding the National Hockey League, so how exactly is the broadcasting portion extremely or radically different? BornonJune8 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1 I haven't "laid it on you", as you put it; it doesn't matter who created the article or who maintains it; it's totally irrelevant. #2 See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why your last sentence has no bearing on keeping or deleting this article. LAroboGuy (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of that template should have demonstrated to you that this sort of content doesn't belong here. There was no need to put it somewhere else "as a compromise" at all. If the community decides that something needs to be deleted than that should be respected. Yes, television coverage of sports games has its notability. We have the relevant articles on the coverage of baseball regardless of the existence of this one. Having trivial, indiscriminate lists of commentators on sports games is utterly unnecessary. What matters most of all in sports events is who participates, who wins and how they do, not which exact persons have commentated on them.Tvx1 18:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what, these said sports events aren't broadcast at all? I mean, how are the fans who aren't their in person going to exactly keep a close track on these events in the first place? And you bring up "relevant articles" on the coverage of baseball yet you on the same token seem imply that the coverage as a whole doesn't really matter (since that isn't the "core" issue, which is a rather blase and narrow-minded suggestion to boldly proclaim). You can't just have it both ways. And you may personally think that something like this is "trivial" or "indiscriminate" (it's way more time consuming anyway to look at singular events, one at a time and learn about the announcers and networks to have broadcast them), but you can't act like you personally speak for the majority. For example, please explain these blogs/sites tracking sports broadcasting history if something like this is none the less, dismissive. At this rate, we might as well not have individual articles in general for sports commentators, if we shouldn't be able to better learn about the significant events that they covered during their respective careers:
http://www.classictvsports.com/
http://sabrmedia.org/databases/network-tv-broadcasts/searchable-network-tv-broadcasts/
http://awfulannouncing.com/
BornonJune8 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please actually read what an other user writes. It's quite comical that you come to my talk page to accuse another user of putting words in your mouth only to show that behavior here yourself. I never wrote TV coverage is not important. I just stated that it's less important than the sportive aspect of sports events. We have articles on the sports. We have article on its coverage in the media. Having lists on all people who worked on the broadcast of one sports event is just overkill.Tvx1 10:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am reading what others write, hence why I'm responding in the first place. And I went to your talk page because somebody else was talking about me (behind my back), hence why I felt the need to defend myself. Just because I may not exactly or necessarily agree with what others have to say right off the bat doesn't change that. And the broadcasters (or the lists of said broadcasters) is just one but still none the less, crucial component (like there aren't various other lists of some kind devoted to one particular major sporting event to pick off of) of the actual event or league (or even to be more centered, the network's respective coverage itself). The broadcasting aspect in some respects, go hand in hand with the sports event itself. If we don't have announcers and networks covering it (the list on their own, aren't exactly something decidedly "broad" and/or vague or generic), then we're for all intents and purposes (unless you actually purchase a ticket to go to the event in person) going to be left in the dark. BornonJune8 (talk) x1 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that most of these sport leagues actually predate broadcasting, don't you? Many of the leagues started well before the invention of television and even radio. People were kept informed through after-the-event reporting and through attending games. Those leagues were perfectly able to happen without being broadcast and people certainly were aware of what happened.Tvx1 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise, you do realize that things evolve over time, especially the way that we keep track of sports? It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to purely see things from the perspective of what predated broadcasting. There was a time in which motion pictures didn't have sound (and either way, were in black and white as well as the early stages of television) to them, so I don't entirely understand that point of view. That's an otherwise, one-note angle to take. And that would be kind of like suggesting that we shouldn't have list devoted to television ratings since there was a point in time in which people didn't watch television (since it wasn't invented yet)! BornonJune8 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a reply to your claim that broadcasting is crucial to sports. The actual reality is that sports have always taken place, with our without broadcasting.Tvx1 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that the "list" has changed considerably since my nomination. When I nominated this it was only a bunch of tables without any form of explanation. Even so, I'm still not convinced of its encyclopedic value. There is certainly enough Wikipedia coverage on the TV broadcasting of this entire sports league. This subject does not warrant a stand-alone article. What's worth mentioning should be put in the already existing articles.Tvx1 10:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are some vague twists on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, really. I've yet to see a legitimate policy ground upon which to delete the article, and that you might not care for it yourself isn't one. Ravenswing 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fred Penner. Redirect restored (I know that some search engines sometimes index different capitalizations so it cannot hurt to leave a redirect), BLP vios revdel'd and page protected to prevent future issues. Mifter (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred penner[edit]

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

Seems to be a redirect that has taken a life of its own as a duplicate article. The article is also available at Fred Penner, which I presume is what it was moved too. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Arton[edit]

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

Non notable individual- I see that there are some press releases regarding his company, Arton Capital (well, the one cited in the article), but as ever notability is not automatically passed down to the CEO and there are no third party independent reliable sources that I can find on this person. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiwot Health Science College[edit]

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

Fails GNG, ORG. No external references, couldn't find any after a quick search. South Nashua (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-r0elated deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inayattullah Altamsh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find sources demonstrating his notability. Saqib (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^delete no entry at goodreads or worldcat. Dlohcierekim 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naimatullah Hamdani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find reliable and independent sources that can demonstrate his notability. Saqib (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Keep as sufficient notability.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xian Jun Loh[edit]

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

Trimmed lots of stuff poorly sources. Not sure if this person is notable or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do student awards make one notable[4]?
I see one hits from google news[5] from 2015. Looks like a nitch publication[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, you have a responsibility per WP:BEFORE to explain why the awards and fellowships included in the article shouldn't count towards notability. As it is, you've provided no reason the article should be deleted. Pburka (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• *Keep. Wikipedia:Anybio says about notability of a person: “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.” The article mentions these significant awards/honors: 1) 2011 – Elected Fellow of Fitzwilliam College 2) 1998 - National Science Talent Search Award Merit Winner 3) 2003 – Singapore National Institute of Chemistry (SNIC) Book Prize. The article also mentions a few other awards/honors but whether they are significant awards is a matter of debate. I do agree with User:Pburka who said: “As the nominator, you have a responsibility per WP:BEFORE to explain why the awards and fellowships included in the article shouldn't count towards notability. “ Please avoid causing others unnecessary work. desmay (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum good point. Well I would not consider the student awards as showing notability the "Elected Fellow of Fitzwilliam College" does.
Will withdraw. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaat-e-Saithal[edit]

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

Another in a series of WP:OR articles from User:SKZssZZ. I simply can't find any solid evidence that his many Sayyid/Saithal-related forks exist as he defines them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was an A7 (see this). Yashovardhan (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: I think you could have nominated all the pages together under one afd. This could've simplified discussion as the concern in almost all the articles are same. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaat-e-Sirsi[edit]

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

It takes a lot for me to bring a places article to Afd but it looks like we have another problem article from User:SKZssZZ, who's become a fixture at AFD with a WP:Walled garden of interlinked WP:OR articles. None of the references on the article seem to verify the existence of this "ancient village." And of course there's a massive coatrack section of near-gibberish, on "Syed Ali Arab Naqvi." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was This was a hoax, pure and simple. The links in the article did not exist, and the news articles about the subject never existed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W. B. Baker[edit]

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

This is a very strange article. i came across it by chance when looking for articles with mentions of the American Biographical Institute. And there are so many things that are wrong with this article I think this is a hoax article built around a Walter Mitty kind of guy. It was created and edited by at least half a dozen SPA accounts. Almost none of the links check out. The claims about the MBE are false, the claims about the Golden Jubilee medal are false, the congressional tribute is full of errors here. the international peace prize was last awarded in 1957 when he was 3. the Queen's Jubilee medal is reserved for service personnel of the UK and Canade and not for service to literature. I could find nothing about the "Magistracy Medal of Honor", I could not find the BBC Hall of Fame, the Royal Star and Garter are homes for injured service personnel, the International Medal of Freedom does not seem to exist. He appears nowhere in the lists of honorary MBEs (see talk page). the Reverend Michael Greene-Butler and Lady Marion Brett exist only in his tribute in his books and a very doubtful obituary for Lady Brett. I can find nothing on him on the web either with W. B. Baker or William A Baker or William Allen Baker a part from his books. I could find no reviews for his books a part from Goodreads. This looks like a massive hoax. Regardless of it being a hoax none of the claims are backed up by reliable sources so it fails WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Juli Endee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Absent DGG's concerns, consensus is clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 01:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm Resilience Centre[edit]

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

The people who run the SRC seem to be notable people, but I can barely find any information about the org itself. Scant news hits, with content mainly being "said XYZ of the SRC." Everything else is just press releases and primary sources. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was told by Primefac that I could create another Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) wikipedia page as long as it abided to the rules of Wikipedia commons. I did just that and formatted the page following a pre-existing wikipedia page for the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) which is an associated organisation (according to wikipedia). I used exactly the same kind of primary sources as can be found on the SEI wikipedia page. It only makes sense that a page for the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) exists.
Why is it that a Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) page is able to exist and not one for the SRC in exactly the same format? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Environment_Institute
It would be much appreciated it you could explain and justify your reasoning on this issue.
If you google the Stockholm Resilience Centre you come up with almost 5 420 results. This is not scant sourcing for the validity of the SRC's work. If you type Stockholm Resilience Centre into Google scholar you come up with over 41, 900 results: https://scholar.google.se/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=Stockholm+Resilience+Centre&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Here is a brief selection of secondary sources which mention the Stockholm Resilience Centre:
There is plenty of secondary material and links out there to support the validation of this organisations and it's researchers work. Because of their obvious contribution to other wiki pages like Planetary Boundaries it seems to be a worthy organisation of it's own page.
I would like to stress again that the information presented on the page is purely factual information about this organisation, not promotion. If there is anyway to improve it to prevent it being deleted please let me know and I will do my best to improve it GriffithsHR (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, where to start.
  • Stockholm Environment Institute's existence falls under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, i.e. just because one page exists doesn't mean we should have a second. Every page is treated on its own merits.
  • On that point, the SEI page is actually pretty terrible. Not sure if it could be deleted but it could definitely use cleanup.
  • You might get a lot of hits, but what do those references actually say? Do they talk about the SRC, or just mention it in passing due to the activities of one of its members?
  • The preceding point is valid for your four references - SRC isn't actually talked about. It is mentioned for hosting an event, defining a word, being in Stockholm, and giving someone a job, respectively.
While none of the coverage you listed is necessarily bad coverage, in order to demonstrate notability we need significant coverage of a group. I couldn't find any, which is why I nominated the page for deletion.
Also, for the record, I never told you to use primary sources. Not sure where you got that idea from. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, sources like...? Primefac (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...highly performing institutions, such as... the Stockholm Resilience Centre... the centre generates new insights and ideas to improve eco-systems management practices and long-term sustainability." – OECD
  • "...advances the understanding of complex social-ecological systems and generates new and elaborated insights and means for the development of management and governance practices. The Centre advises policymakers from all over the world..." – Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town
  • "... the study on the future development of EU policies to 2050 by... the Stockholm Resilience Centre... attempt[s] to detect environmental, economic, social and policy challenges that have a crucial meaning for reaching a sustainable path... The Stockholm Resilience Centre is a new international centre that advances transdisciplinary research for governance of social-ecological systems..." – European Sustainable Development Network
  • "...advances research on the governance of social-ecological systems with a special emphasis on resilience..." – Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  • "...leading the charge to put global development on a sustainable footing... It is interdisciplinary, bringing together the expertise of researchers in all disciplines with something to add to research into The centre uses its research to advise policymakers from around the world on ways to put development on a more sustainable footing." – Stockholm University
  • "...a joint effort of the Stockholm University, the Beijer Institute of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Stockholm Environment Institute that now pool their competences, international networks and collaborators to further the advancement of interdisciplinary science for sustainability. ...The Stockholm Resilience Centre will continuously advice policy makers nationally, in Europe and internationally, and develop innovative collaboration with relevant actors from local social-ecological systems to the global policy arena." – Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research
  • "... an international interdisciplinary centre for research into socioecological systems, i.e. systems where mankind and nature are studied as an integrated whole. The focus is on the resilience of systems — their ability to cope with change and to be developed further. The aim is to contribute new insights and tools that permit ecosystem service production that is sustainable in the long term, and stronger resilience for human welfare." – Swedish Royal Court
-- Epipelagic (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Brogan[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG and i will be bundling a number of other connected subjects Domdeparis (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlin (2016 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fails WP:NFILM
Gemma North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fails WP:NACTOR
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ingrid Lyne[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Death of Ingrid Lyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When this article was nominated for deletion last year, I voted keep due to a small amount of coverage of this as an example of the dangers of meeting people at online dating sites. Although there was one such article recently in local media, I was wrong about notability. We have now passed the 1 year anniversary of this murder, without so much as a 1-year later article in a local paper. Coverage appears to have dried up shortly after the AfD closed as "no consensus." I see nothing beyond the tragedy of an horrific but non-notable murder.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not listed on a daily log. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 28. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:David in DC, Dave, help me out here. I am striving to apply the standards set out in WP:CRIME and WP:NCRIME uniformly, remembering that WP:GNG is, of course, the bottom-line policy that applies to crime pages. I can see that you are familiar with WP:EVENTCRITERIA, and I am never unwilling to be persuaded to change my opinion at AfD. That said, would you be willing to elaborate a little on what makes this one a keeper?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jacob Sartorius#Tours. North America1000 02:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Text World Tour[edit]

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

Notability. This is not a notable tour or artist. There are only two sources on the page and none of them are independent which goes along with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wizardofoz30

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD was never added to log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator appears to be referring to vandalism on the article, which he quite rightly removed. However we do not have a valid deletion rationale, per WP:SKCRIT. Vandalism on an article is not a reason to delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruairí Deane[edit]

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

recentinappropriateactivityandnegativepersonalchanges BP16 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Ruairí Deane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U-Tech College Of Computer Education Akingam Kashmir[edit]

U-Tech College Of Computer Education Akingam Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches turned up no in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monk Giel[edit]

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

This article is at heart a violation of not news. The tussel between the Belgian juvenial authorities and this person and his mother was a news incident, not an incident that made him notable. Thus this also violates 1 event issues, but the event is not notable enough for an article. Beyond this, the sourcing is horrendous. At present that article relies on facebook and twitter more than anything else, not reliable sources. The other two sources I can't quite figure out, but they may not be reliable. I was able to find another source that might be reliable, but nothing to show this rises above a news issue for a 15-year-old. Giel is now 18 or 19, but no one seems to have taken note of his actions in the last 3 years. Being a Buddhist monk is not a claim to notability, and the stand off with the Belgian authorities is not enough to create notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Attic[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND for lack of reliable sources for anything beyond trivial mentions. - MrX 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy Smith[edit]

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

A contested prod. A non-notable minor league baseball player who appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N Mattlore (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Baltz[edit]

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

A contested prod. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Mattlore (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatch Labs[edit]

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

The relationship with Tinder is not enough for notability & there is nothing else. It's already mentioned in the Tinder article, so there's nothing worse merging. . DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gilmour[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ellis (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kandaswami[edit]

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

Insufficient RS to pass GNG, either cited in article or elsewhere. DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Christie (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Brandimore[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Beard[edit]

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

I can't find any sources/references to verify information and to confirm notability of this person. Career section seems very detailed, almost like CV. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. The article is a blatant hoax so falls under WP:CSD#G3. Additionally, the sole author of the article requested deletion by adding a ((db-author)) tag. Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ròstemwu Palace[edit]

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

Possible hoax, Bellun and Fuland yields no Google results. Neither does Rostemwu Palace, King Ota II or Cądytći Rołazya architect. Sources are all invalid. lovkal (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The images in the article are not legitimate, as they are photos of other palaces, such as the Palace of Kozłówka. lovkal (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  12:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Haddad[edit]

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

I did what I could to remove the promotionalism here, but I can not get the article to a state that is not promotional but still shows notability--the notability is too borderline. His various roles have been most co-founder, co-... which does not make it clear his actual contribution. I left in the awards, but I think the two alumni rewards are utterly useless as far as notability is concerned--a person is not notable because his own university thinks he is. I see no reason to think the Arab Creativity Awards notable, and I would take the MIT award much more seriously if it had been from the university, not the university magazine, and not been under-35; and had not been limited to "pan-Arab". I cannot figure out how many people they called "top innovator" because the link does not work & is not the main university site or the magazine site. . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- removed what can be "promotional" - added links and citations to all claims - broke down & reorganized information for more clarity - clarified importance of contribution through citations & additional information (notability particularly related to Middle East, youth, entrepreneurship) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4880:5771:5D67:7F58:F9F2:A4DC (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladik Kreinovich[edit]

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of an anonymous editor, whose rationale is copied from the talk page verbatim. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails notability guidelines. It also doesn't cite any sources. The contents are trivial and in line with non-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:3:3F60:F946:E50A:573E:463F (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jonnu Smith

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as WP:1E Smith's notability appears to stem from his inability to continue playing as a result of an altercation with this partner. Nothing in the article goes beyond that event. Mduvekot (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix the article to address that then, please? Mduvekot (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with delete. But disagree with assertion -- completely -- that a domestic dispute lessens his notablity. Its just the opposite. Notable does not mean "articles about him compliment him." Notability means "there are sufficient articles about him -- good or bad is not at all relevant." 2604:2000:E016:A700:4817:7C35:95FE:6A92 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should consider the sources found by Yankees10?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Springyboy Let me get this straight: You agree that Smith does not currently meet our notability criteria, but we should handle this AfD as if he does meet them, because he will likely meet them at some point in the future? Is that right? Mduvekot (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Ryan[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. No awards, just nominations. No significant independent, reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's basically only one usable "delete" opinion here, by DGG. The others are so peremptory as to be near invalid.  Sandstein  12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microtek[edit]

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

No Citations and Extrenal References Achintgupta2017 (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Aura on an Angel[edit]

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

Searching shows that this film fails WP:NFILM. This article is a recreation of a page previously deleted via WP:PROD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Havers[edit]

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

Not notable IMO, no sources. This is a character in a book, belongs on the book's page (if there is one) if anywhere. Endercase (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^Book and BBC show. Endercase (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The_Inspector_Lynley_Mysteries is a good place for a merge IMO if it is merged and not deleted or improved. I will notify that talk page too. Endercase (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom, per my above notability (uncited) argument. Endercase (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, sorry about this. Still learning, I guess the availability of sources counts as notable and encyclopedic even if not cited. I was blocked from editing or I would have withdraw earlier. I'm glad more experienced users commented on this. Endercase (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: If you add those sources to the article I would likely change my !vote to move or merge. As it is I don't think we should have an article for every character in a notable series or book, particularly when those articles are not cited. A long time ago sub-pages were used for such things. I also have a issue with the current article name as it suggest this is a BLP or historical person. I would suggest if kept on it's own it be moved to Barbara Havers (The Inspector Lynley Mysteries series) or something similar. Additionally, the article if kept should internally link to both the TV show and the Book series IMO. Endercase (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Endercase: I unfortunately do not have the time to add these sources to the article. If you believe that these sources prove notability enough to change your vote, then I should not have to add the sources to the article for you to change your vote as I have already contributed the links to the discussion for the future use by other editors. I respectfully disagree with your suggestion to move the page to a different title. If there is no other article named Barbara Havers, then the article title is appropriate as it currently stands. There are plenty of articles about fictional characters that do not have a disambiguation (for instance, here is an article that I spent a lot of time working on Eve Russell.) The lead should immediately clarify that this character is a work of fiction to avoid the issue that you raise above. Again, I will leave this up to more experienced users as I am going to focus more on article creation and expansion and slowly phase out of participating in AfD discussions. Thank you for your response! Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per A7 . Materialscientist (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rijon Khan[edit]

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

Other than being autobiographical (violates guidelines of WP:COI), article's single reference is to a web page at Reverb Nation where you can hear the subject perform (i.e., it is not "coverage"). Google search turns up the usual social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) but no substantive discussion in reliable, independent, verifiable sources. There is no corresponding article in the Bengali Wikipedia. KDS4444 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Van Avermaet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Non-notable basketball who has never played in any professional league nor international competition necessary for notability. Article is unsourced and only contains a link to his Facebook page. A Google search provides nothing but the Wiki article or mirrors of it. CBS527Talk 02:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC) CBS527Talk 02:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daegwang Elementary School[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. elementary schoools have no inherent notability. this one looks like WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. it was marked for notability and being uncited in June 2013. the Korean version of this article is poorly sourced too. LEt's see if the usual suspect turns up to this AfD. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All articles are to provide information about their subjects; that's neither here nor there. Are there independent sources to show that it meets notability requirements? LadyofShalott 02:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  12:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Minority Studies[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: You obviously didn't search for "Europäisches Journal für Minderheitenfragen" as Cordless Larry mentioned two weeks ago. I see 1290 hits on Google Scholar. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman[edit]

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

Doesn't pass Wikipedia:POLITICIAN criteria. bio created and expanded by the subject himself. one sources is cited which is not reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia. the subject holding a position within a political party's staff which is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass. Saqib (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited few sources but most of the references quote him (name checking) instead of discussing his life or work. --Saqib (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lansing Field[edit]

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

Non notable sports field only mentioned in small local newspapers where there are always slow news days.SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
those are small local newspapers where nothing noteworthy happens. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These local newspapers aren't enough(WP:NOTNEWS).Burning Pillar (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eversheds Sutherland[edit]

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

Article about a firm which has a very large advertising component. If the advertising was removed there would one sentence left. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Sawayama[edit]

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

Non notable supposed artist and model. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete some sources are reliable. The article can be trimmed. Man she looks odd. —usernamekiran[talk] 09:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the sources are in effect advertising and should be disregarded for notability purposes, or not.  Sandstein  12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grana (fashion company)[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- references are only press releases and notices of funding DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is published by Vox Media's fashion website Racked.com. The article is a review of the company Grana and its products. It is not surprising that a journalist for a fashion website did a price comparison between Grana and similar companies and reported her findings to her readers. The article also says, "In terms of price and style, Grana falls somewhere in between Uniqlo and Everlane." The journalist indicated that Uniqlo is cheaper than Grana, which is exactly what an independent journalist would do. A non-independent journalist would not include that information because that information does not promote Grana.

    Cunard (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it is explicitly an advertisement: it says in effect, shop at Grana. . And Loooking at the next reference "Quality is his other pillar. The brand uses world renowned material such as Chinese silk from Huzhou or Peruvian Pima cotton, sourced from the same mills that work with luxury brands such as Ralph Lauren and Lacoste." That's not investigation, that's copying their advertising. It doesn't matter who publishes it, an article advocating the store is an advertorial at best. Even a supposedly reputable publication publishing such ads is not longer a reliable source for that material. True fashion journalism describes, not urges to shop at a particular store. What you are in essence saying is that because traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content, we should do likewise. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you are in essence saying is that because traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content, we should do likewise. – I do not believe traditional publishers print advertising as if it were editorial content. That the journalist's review of the company and its products is very favorable does not make the source non-independent or advertising.

Cunard (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No undisclosed advertisements are being run in the very reputable sources Agence France-Presse, The Australian, South China Morning Post, which all provide international significant coverage of Grana.

Burning Pillar's account is very new. Burning Pillar's deletion review request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 24#Timeline of Amazon.com was closed as, "Administrative close. We're not doing a DRV from a WP:SPA created two days ago."

Cunard (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • When a source (such as the ones you mention) extensively quotes a company exec and builds an entire article around what that exec says (and nothing more) that the article is not objective and fails to be an *intellectually independent* source. There's no criticism in any of those articles and no quotes from independent sources and nothing to indicate that any independent verification took place. It is misplaced to take these sources as "independent" journalism and I don't believe for one second that the sources intend to promote these pieces as independent. It is literally the definition of an advertorial which is an increasingly common method for company marketing execs to "communicate" their corporate message. If this company was truly notable, sources that do not follow this pattern would exist. -- HighKing++ 12:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Substantial debate on both sides by experienced editors after the relist suggesting that we're not close to coming to consensus on this one. A Traintalk 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AstroLabs[edit]

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

no wvidence for notability -- just lists and brief notices DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where your logic is going. Are you saying that since "that one source" (not sure what one you are referring to) is already in the article that it is not notable since the article was recommended for deletion with that reference already there? I also wouldn't be accusing editors of "not actually paying attention." If you focus purely on the article and what is there, then you are doing something wrong. You need to look beyond what is on the actual pages of Wikipedia sometimes to determine if references exist to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muhammed Mekki and Louis Lebbos, co-founders of AstroLabs, warmly welcome more than 300 guests at their new co-working space."
Just a tech startup going about its business; nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Many articles in the press get their start that way. It is considered public relations. A company reaches out to the press with information and the press decides to run with the story or not. That doesn't mean it's promotional. There is a difference between press that is paid for and press that is influenced by PR. Most publications don't knock on the doors of companies and ask them if they have a good story to tell. It all starts with PR. Some companies do better at it because they can afford while others don't. I don't see how these references - unless you can point out otherwise - were paid advertisements. Would this (and the many others based on the same announcement) be considered promotional since the headline reads "SpaceX Announces?" --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which by the way, the Fortune example above is a brief announcement. Compare that to the references I cited in my keep !vote and you will see a major difference. The ones published on AstroLabs are beyond brief mentions and general announcements. They are very in-depth and meet WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, my reply to SwisterTwister above was not an attempt to defend the article, but an attempt to defend the references about the article topic. Also, I am NOT advocating for the use of press releases for notability - I am not sure how anyone could advocate for using a press release for notability. When I say “PR” I am referring to the profession of “public relations,” not the term “press release.” The point to my response above is that the majority of press is influenced by public relations in some form, which sometimes does include a press release. Now, simply reprinting a press release is churnalism and involves no fact-checking and is unacceptable. However, if a publication writes a story that contains quotes from a press release, this does not automatically make it churnalism, nor should it be discounted just because they quote from the press release. If we disregard any reference that was somehow sparked by the effort of public relations, we would actually need to discount the majority of press out there. Each source needs to be weighed individually and I don’t see how the ones cited above are advertorials (paid for by the company) or simple reprints of press releases. They contain independent information and come from reliable sources. They are also in-depth which in my opinion, satisfy what is needed to establish WP:GNG. But again, that’s just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point that CNMall41 is making. The fact is that Press Releases do spark interest in a subject or topic. Then journalists pick up on it. If the journalist in a reliable source has used as their starting point of interest a Press Release, that's not bad journalism. That's just the starting point. I seriously doubt any of the above references like the Wall Street Journal are just "reprinting" a press release. They probably saw a buzz of interest and chose to write about it. Are we really going to deconstruct every article to determine just how much PR is involved? Do we need to phone up every journalist and have them give us citations? Is this really the direction we want to go with articles just so that we can discredit enough sources in a an AfD to get the result we desire? Determining somehow (through magic?) that an article is PR just because we feel like it is, isn't Wiki policy, nor good practice in an AfD. I'll be commenting later on the article, because there are other sources out there to add. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: I agree we have to excercise our judgement here. I have read those articles and I side with the camp that they read too much like rewritten press releases - they seem to promotional, and the coverage doesn't seem much better than that for any other minor start up (they exist, yay!... Google connection, cool!). Sorry, for me that's not enough to make them warrant a page in an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:, please don't be flip. I said above that I would be commenting later because I found more references on HighBeam, etc. I've added them to the article. The point of finding and discussing more sources is to establish GNG, not to show that I know how to use Google. I appreciate you assuming good faith. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: I am sorry we have a misunderstanding; I always assume AGF and I didn't meant to put any words into your mouth. When I wrote the 'cool' sentence, I didn't mean to imply it was your attitude, but that it was the attitude of the sources discussed (that's how I read them). I am sure you know how to use google, and implying otherwise was not my intention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it very much. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of "Public Relations" is to create a favorable impression of a company or individual. Press releases are a vehicle to do this and certainly do not convey a NPOV. Unfortunately in the rush to provide instant information, press releases from the organizations are often used by publications with minimal change. There is no requirement that a publication needs to disclose the information comes from a press release. The same information that is contained in an advertisement may be found in a press release. The main difference is one is paid for the other is not. Just because a source is not paid for doesn't necessarily make it more credible.
Press Releases, by definition, are primary sources and generally not suitable for establishing notability as they are not independent and in many cases may not be reliable. Many of our subject specific notability criteria exclude press releases and our WP:VERIFY policy considers press releases as self published, hence, primary sources. CBS527Talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who are stating that these references are blatantly promotional and rewrites of press-releases are making some assertions that they need to defend:
  1. That they know that these are rewrites of Press releases. How do they know that? Do they have copies of the PR to compare?
  2. The articles they are trying to discredit as advertising or press-releases are, in fact, written as advertising. You can't just say that it "feels" like advertising. You have to show me that it's advertising. Otherwise I'm not convinced.

Article clearly passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl - I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider these sources that you added contain "in-depth" coverage of the subject.
The sources you added
  • AstroLabs was founded in 2012 by Louis Lebbos & Muhammed Mekki, the founders of [nn] Namshi.com.[6][7] In 2016, AstroLabs hosted the the Women in STEM (WiSTEM) Hackathon.[2] As of 2015, AstroLabs has received over 9,000 applications for startup businesses.[9] Etc.
All of the article's copy can be just as successfully housed on the company's web site. Thus, the existence of this article does not serve the readers, but instead (by necessity) is promotion for the company, which Wikiepedia does not do. In this case, WP:NOT overrides any marginal newsworthiness the company might have (because it's effective at PR). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I think first you have to adequately show that the references are "contaminated" with PR before you can dismiss them. So far, editors !voting delete are relying on how an article "feels" or "seems." That is not how we decide we should delete. The subject of the article passes GNG... unless you decide that the sources feel or seem like PR. That's unacceptable until you can adequately prove that the articles in reliable sources are indeed only advertising. Other factors brought up as "it adds to society" are indeed tangential to the question of GNG. The fact is that the article passes GNG... unless we are changing the rules for this article and allowing feelings to trump facts. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Going to jump in here, too. You need to prove that these articles are promotional, beyond how you feel about it. K.e.coffman brings up a good example, calling an article "clearly aspirational." Does that make it advertising because it has a positive tone? We can't automatically assign positive-toned articles to unequivocally equal advertising. Many articles about places and people are positive without being advertising. Piotrus brings up marketing materials. How do you know, Piotrus, that the articles are based on the marketing materials solely? Can you demonstrate this? If those saying the references are too promotional can prove that all the above references are advertising beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll reconsider my !vote. But it has to be based on facts, not feelings. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have already given clear reasons why many of the references display the signs of a press release. Press releases do not have to be available online.
The only thing I can add is -
  • if a large part of "the source" contains direct quotes from a company official or someone associated with the company with no evidence that the writer has communicated with that person, (ie: conversation, email, etc.) then it's very likely it came from a press release and not independent from the topic regardless where it is published.
  • Is "the source" about an announcement of something? - this type of information almost universally is disseminated through a press release. The source may be useful for verifying material in the article, but is not useful for establishing notability.
Whether or not we keep an article is based on policy, not if something exists, not on content, not on inherent notability or whether "like it/don't like".
The guideline, WP:GNG is not a free pass for inclusion. Even if an article appears to meet this minimum standard, the article is only presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article and not guaranteed as the article may violate a policy of Wikipedia per WP:GNG. When a guideline and policy conflict, the policy takes precedence. A number of the editors, myself included, feel this article violates our core policy WP:What Wikipedia is not for the reasons stated. It's fine if others disagree after all that's why we are having this discussion. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia. I'm confident the closer of this AFD will give appropriate weight to each of the comments. CBS527Talk 04:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cbs527, yes, plenty of editors have claimed they somehow know that the reliable sources above are "clearly" PR. I disagree that the articles are PR and have invited them to definitively show that their claims are valid. GNG is a standard for inclusion, period--no one is saying the article should get a free pass. The sources used in the article (most of which are in-depth), show that Astrolabs has been covered over time. We don't get to change the criteria for GNG just because we feel like it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've included commentary of each source and why it fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability by directly referencing the relevant policy/guidelines below. You say that some editors have claimed they "somehow know" that the "reliable sources above are clearly PR". My position is easy to understand. A source must be "intellectually independent" in order to establish notability. That means that the journalist or publication has fact checked the data and stands over their work (or has voiced a personal opinion based on some other work) and doesn't blindly accept positively spun messaging from an organization. When a journalist uses extensive quotations and/or attributes data to other people or surveys, the only integrity that the article has is that the included quotations are accurate and that the people/organizations/surveys quoted said what was quoted. They don't stand over the content of the quotation, just the fact that the quotation was provided. For me, that's the Big Red Flag. Each of the sources provided to date follow this (lazy non-journalistic) pattern. -- HighKing++ 13:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloomberg articles can sometimes be thinly disguised "advertorials" - that is, an article that poses as an informative independent article but in fact relies completely on the company providing the information. Bloomberg articles that follow the formula of "describe problem -> how the idea/company was born -> photos of founder -> quotes from company officers/founders/CEO -> funding/customer wins/awards" are easy to spot and I consider them to be advertorials. This is one of those articles. There are no criticisms and nothing negative is written about the company or their "opportunity" and there is a lot of hopeful forward-looking aspirational statements. It is not "intellectually independent". This article fails to establish notability because it uses "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:ORGIND because the content is "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization".
  • The Gitex Technology Week reference provided is by subscription only. Here's one that isn't. This fails WP:ORGIND as it is a PR announcement for GITEX that mentioned Astrolabs in passing (the co-founder will be a judge for one of the competitions) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization".
  • The National article is another advertorial and if you have read the Bloomberg article previously, this article is eerily similar - even uses the same quotes from various people. For the same reasons, this article fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and is not intellectually independent.
  • The WSJ source fails because it is a blog and is therefore not considered a reliable source.
  • The Entrepeneur article is another advertorial and follows the same formula including "problem -> idea -> photo -> quotes -> solution". It relies completely on company quotations and cannot be considered "intellectually independent". It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • The Wamda article is also an advertorial. Follows the same formula. Relies on quotations from company officers and data provided by the company. It even profiles two of the startups starting there but they *gush* about Astrolabs with comments like "Enthusiastic to become a member of AstroLabs Dubai", "We were impressed by the organized speed of growth ... We are also convinced that AstroLabs Dubai is the suitable platform for such growth", "We are impressed by the division of work-stations. In other words, AstroLabs is greatly aware of the needs of startups". The article is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • The Video at DMCC is missing and returns Page Not Found
  • The Google page cannot be used to establish notability as it is not independent since Google is one of AstroLab's partners.
  • The Times of Oman article (also available without requiring a subscription here) is a profile on a founder of shoponclick.me and AstroLabs is mentioned in passing. Since the article is 1) An advertorial 2) About a different topic and 3) Only mentioned AstroLabs in passing, this article cannot be used to establish notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • The Times of India article is a Press Release about a different topic (Nasscom) and mentioned AstroLabs in passing. Notwithstanding that Press releases cannot be used to establish notability, there is no depth of coverage and therefore the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
An article requires "multiple" sources to meet the criteria for notability and this topic does not even have a single source that clearly and unequivocally meets the criteria. If this topic was truly notable we would be able to find a reference that was intellectually independent. -- HighKing++ 16:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have removed the two sentence in the article that were referenced by the Times of India article as well as this source.("Here".) The statements were counter-factual to what was contained in the source. CBS527Talk 00:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Grandma[edit]

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

This article cites two sources which I consider generally WP:RS - The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. However - one citation is dated November 01, 2016; the other two are undated, but were retrieved on October 23, 2015 and March 15, 2017; whereas, the series which the article is about debuted on March 22, 2017. I cite WP:GNG, WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERT.

I am also concerned about the other bluelinked articles in Template:YouTube Red. I haven't gone into them in any detail, but I get a smell of WP:SPAM for a subscription service. Narky Blert (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. One month open and only two participants -- there's no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. A Traintalk 22:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile 2.0[edit]

Mobile 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. This phrase is closely related to Web 2.0 and always appears in the same context. The phrase was originally coined by Jaokar and Fish (2006), or by Holmquist (2007). See this and this. There is simply not enough academic papers or other in-depth sources that discuss the phrase. In comparison, we do not have an article for Learning 2.0, but we do have one for Library 2.0.

Redirectifying or merging to Web 2.0 would be satisfactory results too. However, I am not sure if this phrase is notable enough to even be mentioned in that article. Ceosad (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Comment – WP:NEO states, "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted...", but this topic has received significant coverage and usage in reliable sources. As such, this is not actually a "member of the subset of WP:NEO". North America1000 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otley Run[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable pub crawl consisting almost entirely of original research, with the sourcing comprised of blogs such as this and promotional websites. Interestingly this article in the Telegraph, listed as a source, focuses on the pubs of Otley yet it does not mention the "Otley Run." Article was nominated for deletion 11 years ago resulting in no consensus. No discernible improvement in sourcing and article weaknesses since then. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 

- The Otley run is the best known pub crawl in England. It is undertaken in a specified order (which should be reinstated to the article) by thousands of people from across the Yorkshire region and further abroad each weekend. Hundreds of thousands across each year.


Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 22:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Criterion Collection UK releases[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Doesn't add anything that can't be included at List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases simply by adding a footnote for all the releases that have also had a UK release. (Also, the spine numbers are incorrect, but that isn't a reason to delete!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that everything in the article can be merged with List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. Numbering, however, is not by spine number (even though that would have been useful in the UK article too) but instead by the order of release in the UK marketplace; and this in itself is useful info, and should be included in case the two articles are merged. The same goes for having the information on announced, upcoming UK releases (many of which are already released in the US). As a result, I would not use footnotes but instead create a new column in the table for the UK releases (i.e. the title of the column would be "UK release" and the lines list either a date or nothing (or a colour-coded date for an upcoming release). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teehex (talk • contribs) 06:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UK numbering is WP:SYNTH. There were six releases on the same day (numbered 1 to 6), but they have been arbitrarily numbered here. The US Criterion release dates aren't mentioned, so it would give WP:UNDUE weight to the UK release dates if we included them. A footnote with "also released in the UK" (or similar) should suffice. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per criteria 1 (nominator withdrawals nomination) (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trichy Teppakulam[edit]

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

Proper information is not given at all. Trichy Teppakulam, the article is. But nothing refer about it and describes about surrounding areas. It must be cleared or expanded with the description about the topic alone and not any other. wiki tamil 100 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator should clarify whether the article should be cleaned up or deleted. As such, it is not a hoax and articles on places definitely fulfill Wikipedia notability guidelines.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 04:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it-Let it be. Don't want to be deleted. But must be cleaned up. The information must be about the temple tank only.--wiki tamil 100 (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator does not want article deleted and as WP:NOTCLEANUP... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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