The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gro CRM[edit]

Gro CRM (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)

removed prod, but none of the concerns was fixed- fundamentally doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- basically G11-level spam. I was going to request a speedy deletion, but I see that this has already been attemped, so it's a straight "Delete" then. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gro CRM considered for deletion

Hello jcc,Rentier,K.e.coffman

The Gro CRM page I created is being considered for deletion. I read the concerns. I am in the process of updating the page further. Any suggestions or guidance would be very helpful. Thanks! Shanescott127 (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Shanescott127 06:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spam article on a non-notable product. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:GNG, topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is not presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and article is WP:PROMO Hagennos (talk) 06:30, 25 December 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) 21:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekran System[edit]

Ekran System (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 meet WP:NSOFTWARE ; a search for sources finds only PRWire articles which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Both the sources and the article are purely promotional. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, WP:GNG. Rentier (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:GNG, topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is not presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 07:45, 23 December 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.

RateGain[edit]

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RateGain (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)

nothing has changed since January when this article was deleted at AfD, now a confirmed UPE sock has republished it, the same things apply- all provided sources are reprinted press releases not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH (a lot are venture funding reports), or from non-notable promotionalism only websites jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, G11 by DGG. (non-admin closure) !dave 10:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotic Media[edit]

Neurotic Media (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, reviewing the sources we see that most are trivial mentions, republished press releases or in one instance, the CEO has offered their comment to a self published blog, showing that this company is fundamentally non-notable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional spam on a completely nn company. Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP; fluff copy includes:

• Neurotic Media uses a patented B2B2C business relationship[7] across its chain of content owners, merchants,brands and consumers! Etc.

I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 23 December 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) 21:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Ogden[edit]

Tessa Ogden (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)

Almost-unsourced BLP. Has been PRODded before, and dePRODded in March 2017 with "Needs expansion but enough to work on". The only source is one which verifies that she is CEO of CEPR but adds no other info. The rest of the content was added, unsourced, when the article was created by an editor who has made 5 edits, 3 of them about this person. No indication of notability, no sources to support most of the article. No useful ghits found. If we remove the unsourced BLP content we are left with "is the CEO of CERP". A redirect to Centre for Economic Policy Research would be appropriate, as she is mentioned there in infobox. PamD 21:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Inclined to agree with nom on this one; there is absolutely zero sourcing in the article to establish even a glimmer of a chance of passing WP:GNG, or even verifying the minimalist claims of fact made about this individual. My own searches turned up nothing more than the usual personal social media, and the occasional listing of a past or present staff position, but nothing that looks like a reliable, secondary source, and certainly nothing which established notability. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No RS, SPA-created, all OR, and on down the line. Agricola44 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Church (Demotte, Indiana)[edit]

First Church (Demotte, Indiana) (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 without multiple independent sources covering the subject in detail. References are either human interest stories from a small media outlet, published by the church itself or a brief mention in an architectual magazine. TM 18:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable small town church; nothing of any particular notability. Quis separabit? 19:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this isn't a notable topic for all the reasons stated above, I also don't see a reason why someone would need this information in the first place. This article is not only written sounding like promo, but I think the most likely reason someone would make an article like this is to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion and recognition for their company. Definitely not meeting WP:PROMO or WP:GNG. Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete I have been working to edit the article so that it does not sound like a promo wp:promo can be changed and fixed. Definitely would be open to advice and help in making it less promotional and more neutral. Considering the fact that the church is larger than the entire town that it is in (Wheatfield Indiana) and almost the oldest continuously operating community institution in Demotte or Wheatfield Indiana, and in addition to local sources it is published with a major write up in a nationally circulated magazine (RCA today) I would argue that it does meet the notability standards. If this article is not notable than all small town articles like Demotte's Wheatfield's and others would need to be deleted. User:johnjurohill —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete This church and this article have historical significance. It's an organization that has been a pillar of it's community since the late 1800's. It's longevity alone should justify this article. There is also a miriad of published sources from local papers to national magazine publications that have noted the significance of First Church and it's contributions within its sphere of influence. Let's fix the promotional language and stick to substance that actually informs about this organization. User:grantolomeo —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it is the first church, not the second or third, so that must be notable. Just kidding, this clearly fails GNG, so Delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG,ORG, etc. etc. etc. It also seems to violate PROMO. If the article creator wants to put a link to the church's website on Wheatfield, Indiana, with a little bit of the non self-promotional parts of this article on Wheatfield, that'd be fine. South Nashua (talk) 17:30, 20 December 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. ansh666 07:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriy Sosnovskiy[edit]

Dmitriy Sosnovskiy (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)

Contested Prod - Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete He has none of the three required top tier flights and I don't see the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. He hasn't had a fight in close to 3 years, so him meeting WP:NMMA seems like a leap of faith.Sandals1 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 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 after improvements. ansh666 07:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Braddy[edit]

Pauline Braddy (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 non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 17:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've expanded the article and found sources. She was considered a very important drummer of her time by several writers and was known as "The Queen of the Drums." Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep –What the article needed was improvement and it got one. Compare this revision when nominated for deletion and the current revision. The sources are enough to show meeting WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 21 December 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. ansh666 07:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avijit Arya[edit]

Avijit Arya (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 on a non-notable marketer, commissioned from a paid editor. The article is based entirely on puff "profiles", interviews, advertorials and other low quality, non-independent sources. Searches turn up no significant coverage in independent sources. Melcous has cleaned up some of the more blatantly spammy text, but this is still a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject has made significant contribution to the digital marketing industry when you google him. Should qualify under WP:BASIC References are secondary sources. There are a lot advertorials but articles do come up for him on yourstory, economic times, businessworld. I am fairly new here but I would think those are recognised publications. Also, he is a reknowned speaker in the digital marketing field. Wikilover2604 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have to look a little deeper than the titles of publications; for example, I presume this is the "Economic Times" (actually Times of India economic section) hit you were referring to, as I could find no other reference which matches that assertion. That page is nothing more than a "corporate dossier"; essentially a self-filed questionnaire about the man's favourite bars and travel vistas. That's not a reliable source, nor in-depth coverage, both of which we would need to retain this article. The "BusinessWorld" page is another example; it's not constituted by coverage of Arya, that could provide evidence of his purported notability: it's a blog post/editorial by him, about balancing work and family. I've looked at every source I could turn up that looked even initially promising, but in the end virtually all were promotional/non-independent, and none of them were WP:reliable sources under our policies. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nomination. A WP:BEFORE source shows up a bunch of self promotion, much like this seems to be. Melcous (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the sourcing does at first look as if it may barely pass muster for GNG, until one reviews the actual content of those sources, and it becomes obvious that none of them are WP:reliable sources under our policies, but are instead advertisements and other non-independent and non-secondary fluff. Albeit with some of it masquerading (poorly) as indendent media coverage. and even these promotional pages say next to nothing of substance about the man, aside from to list his educational history and mention his role in a family-owned hotel business. The rest is all vague, hagigraphic assertions about the man's supposed "revolutionary" role in the development of online marketing (strange that such a giant has evaded all indpendent business news media attention); these statements almost all hit a spot between grandiose-sounding and so indefinitely worded (and ambiguously attributed) as to be nonsensical--for example "Avijit Arya has to his credit testimonials accredited by the finest, attested to his exponential experience..." and "Thus, his acute understanding of the entire industry and related verticals!". Clearly lacking the necessary in-depth, independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources to establish WP:Notability at this time. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO due to the lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sourcing fails requirements for being indepdent of the subject and indepth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 22 December 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) 21:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vernal[edit]

Mark Vernal (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)

Deletion per WP:ENT. The person is an actor, but does not meet the criteria for notability of actors. Being an actor does not make him inherently notable. _{Adotchar| reply here} 15:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails NACTOR and ENT. Quis separabit? 17:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This have long way to meet WP:ACTOR and generally lacks coverage in reliable sources failing WP:GNG –Ammarpad (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ENT, quick google search only brought up an IMDB, listing. Nothing really notable on news articles or anything else. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 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. Second NAC close, feel free to revert if wrong... (non-admin closure) !dave 18:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pyongyang Declaration[edit]

Pyongyang Declaration (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)

Searches for this mostly bring up a different "declaration" involving the Japanese government, which seems to enjoy some notability; there are also a fair number of false hits on various things the NK government has "declared". This particular declaration seems to have no footprint outside a bunch of communist partys who have said that they signed it— and Pyongyang blowing its own horn. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Possibly rename to Let Us Defend and Advance the Cause of Socialism Declaration (or something along those lines or maybe tack on a (1992) - seems this one - Japan–North Korea Pyongyang Declaration is possibly more common for "Pyongyang Declaration") for this last hurrah (so far) of the communists in the face of the collapse of curtain. Some sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would second Icewhiz's findings on sources. Historical Dictionary of Pyongyang (number two on the list above) in particular is a great quality source. Historical Dictionary of North Korea also has a dedicated entry, as does A Handbook on North Korea

Searching with the date helps though – incidentally – Kim Jong-il ascended to the rank of marshal on that very same day. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You based your entire search on Google Hits, and google result is not the end since it searches for occurrence of letters everywhere they occur. Beside the above source here are more [8] and [9] also likely more may be found in Korean language or print sources. Renaming is fine but that's not focus of AfD, so after closing it any editor can rename it to more appropriate name. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:27, 22 December 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) 21:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Raven (gastropub)[edit]

Red Raven (gastropub) (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 restaurant. Article reads like an advertisement and the sources are routine for a restaurant. TM 14:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete- Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 20-Mule-Team Delete: Nor is Wikipedia a web host. Oh, hey, look, this restaurant has its own website. Seriously, the article creator merits a trout slap for this one. Ravenswing 19:44, 18 December 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. ansh666 07:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metacomic[edit]

Metacomic (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)

Basic definition with no references. PROD was contested without comment. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being a basic definition is not a reason to delete; it just means that the page is a WP:STUB. The lack of references is likewise not an issue as the nominator should search for those per WP:BEFORE. It's not as if they don't exist; for example, The Routledge Companion to Comics has a chapter about the topic. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons stated by Andrew D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerntrash (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 December 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. ansh666 07:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Buckz[edit]

Big Buckz (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:V too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Article has no sources and gives no indication of notability.Sandals1 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 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. ansh666 07:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Once Was Gold (Braeden Wright album)[edit]

What Once Was Gold (Braeden Wright album) (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)

Album does not meet notability and only has references to iTunes and self-pub. Artist article was Prodded in August. There is a Forbes article [10] and some random blog article [11] but they are interviews. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: as the article for the artist was also deleted under a PROD, doesn't this now qualify for a speedy deletion under A9? The claims of critical reviews on Metacritic appear to be bogus, and "Spinnup" is not a record label but a digital platform allowing unsigned artists to upload their music. Mr. Wright's album appears to be nothing more than homemade demos uploaded to this platform. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 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) 21:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportlobster[edit]

Sportlobster (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)

social networking site which has since ceased operations and moved to a new platform. Uhooep (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage is poor, outside press releases we have interviews and that's about it. The 'article' in The National is a de facto interview too. I don't think this suffices for this to pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. Received $3M in funding which strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above - references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:29, 22 December 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. Consensus that the result of the previous AfD was correct. No need to relist this one a third time. ansh666 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtray Heart[edit]

Ashtray Heart (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 appear to be sufficiently INDEPENDENTLY notable to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It was deemed notable last year and nothing has changed. Even if you don't believe it warrants its own article, there are better alternatives to bringing articles like this to AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Michig, the article was deemed "keep" last time around in September and nothing has changed since then. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection to recreation if notability is met after release of new album (or if he becomes notable some other way), but as of right now he doesn't. Let me know if anyone wants it restored to user or draft space. ansh666 07:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Mask the Slump God[edit]

Ski Mask the Slump God (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)

Four previous versions have been deleted here and at Ski Mask The Slump God. I do not think that notability has yet been established. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ski Mask has shown his own notability like XXXTentacion beyond the Members Only collective. See "Catch Me Outside" and his other popular songs. 67.169.149.118 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.169.149.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - At best, this is a case of too soon. True, Ski Mask has worked with notable artists like Lil Pump but notability is not inherited and there is no indication any of his recordings have yet made a notable chart or garnered a significant award.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ski Mask the Slump God's upcoming release would be his second release under Republic Records, thereby meeting the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. This might be a case of too soon, but I believe that the supposedly near release date would also warrant the article avoiding deletion for at least a week or so to allow time for the project to drop. 66.30.161.208 (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 66.30.161.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete – will likely be notable after next album is released as per WP:MUSICBIO, but this doesn't even have a release date yet. PriceDL (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 December 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. ansh666 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' Son (song)[edit]

Jesus' Son (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)

Does not appear to be INDEPENDENTLY notable enough to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So why didn't you consider merging it to the album? --Michig (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In fact, not a single reason exists to delete this article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning or justification and contrary to WP rules.

The article is about a single by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). There is a Wikipedia article for every single Placebo have released, all of them fulfilling the WP guidelines for articles of this kind, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.

To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:

1. Its subject is notable.
2. It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
3. It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter this article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need this article and will be interested in the information it provides.
4. The article has existed on Wikipedia for well over a year by now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
5. Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.

In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of this article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. This article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to A Place for Us to Dream, per WP:NSONG. While some staffers at PopMatters weighed in with their opinions of the song, the vast majority of other sources mention the single as part of the upcoming album, mention that the song was played in a concert, or simply announce that the song has a video. An article built solely on WP:SUBJECTIVE opinions and the fact a promotional video was made is a poor article. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know whether this is notable or not, but it would seem to me that if it is notable it should be possible to find a source that says the blindingly obvious - that the title is a quotation from The Velvet Underground's "Heroin". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 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. ansh666 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pyeng Threadgill[edit]

Pyeng Threadgill (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 Toypadlock (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. There is definitely coverage of this subject beyond what is presented in the article - for example, "REVIEW / Singer Pyeng Threadgill bridges classic, contemporary jazz with an easy subtlety", Neva Chonin, San Francisco Chronicle (July 4, 2006) and "Contra-Tiempo’s ‘Agua Furiosa’ has too much to say", Rebecca Ritzel, The Washington Post (February 14, 2016). bd2412 T 18:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Referenced in reliable sources including Allmusic, BARE, and reviewed here, here, here, here, etc. Notability criteria are met. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – She is notable as she passes some of the criteria set at Wikipedia:Notability (music) –

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
2. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
3. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
4. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:49, 11 December 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. ansh666 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CityFalcon[edit]

CityFalcon (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. The coverage appears to only be routine coverage and press releases. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been updated. There are many popular sources that refer to the article topic.Gevlare (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  "Routine coverage" is what defines passing GNG.  This topic is a 2014 startup, so fails WP:SUSTAINED.  At first I thought the topic might be a publisher, but I don't see any publications.  I also noticed four Ghits on Google scholar that might indicate future promise.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable tech startup going about its business. "Graduated from Microsoft Accelerator in 2015" strongly suggests "non-notable" and WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 26 December 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. Note that WP:AfD is not cleanup - the quality of the article has no bearing on the notability of the subject. ansh666 07:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Pollard[edit]

Pam Pollard (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 meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor political functionary, not elected, fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEY, Keep. running searches produces WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  There is no evidence in this AfD that this topic fails either GNG or NPOL, and being a minor political functionary is not a metric that we consider.  As per NBIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  Unscintillating (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable political figure whose article is backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- sources are there, its not unusual for a leader of a state political party to be considered notable. As per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success." (and her party has had electoral success in Oklahoma).--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A very minor political career. This is a poorly written article, lacking citations. Perhaps if it was cleaned up it would be more notable. Jooojay (talk) 08:48, 21 December 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) 21:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Mae Brunson[edit]

Lisa Mae Brunson (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)

Looks like she is not quite yet notable beside Long Beach Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree. Besides LBP, sources seem to be webcruft and local papers with trivial mentions. Notability claim is also problematic: "creative visionary" and "social innovator" are vague and there's no convincing demonstration of notability as an author or public speaker. Seems to be a fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable (also has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 22 December 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 Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian War[edit]

Israeli–Palestinian War (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)

There is no official definition of Israeli-Palestinian war and this disambiguation page does not add any meaningful information. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. The term is not used, and is specifically wrong for the various Gaza conflicts/wars which did not involve the West Bank. It could be arguably be used to describe to the Second Intifada (to which some refer to as a war), 1948 Arab–Israeli War, or 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - however it is not used for these conflicts either. Furthermore that article creator has 45 edits and thus is not extended-confirmed and is not supposed to edit ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague, incomplete and subjective. Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict where this is more or less covered. It's certainly a plausible search term for the conflict. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. It seems rather simple a solution to me to just make this page a redirect to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as some users might have tried to be searching for that page in confusion with this one.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete not redirect because the usage of "Palestine" to describe a series of conflicts between Israel and Hamas is misleading. And delete because everything found here is well covered and easily discovered in Gaza–Israel conflict.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict per reasons listed by Kierze and Tavix above. This topic is covered on the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" page. It's definitely a plausible search term for the conflict. It's a simple solution to just make this page a redirect to the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" page. Many users might try to search for that page in confusion with this one. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and let the ostriches keep their heads in the sand, denying the existence of Palestine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A number of users happen to confuse these terms, a redirect would help this situation. Lorstaking (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict as duplicate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 22 December 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. ansh666 07:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Odbody[edit]

Clarence Odbody (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 contains essentially no information not already present at It's a Wonderful Life. If the trivial "quotes" section necessitates a separate article, here it is - otherwise this should be redirected. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, the iconic character of Clarence Odbody, the guardian angel from the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life, also received his own self-titled film in 1990 which further adds to the topics notability and detail. The page had been stable since 2007 until an undiscussed good faith blanking and redirect on December 31, 2015, and I brought it back and am improving it with promised help by a film-knowledgeable editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say keep, the character has been discussed in depth in many literary sources. There's also this, not sure what to make of that.★Trekker (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Randy Kryn. Where Clarence is concerned, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to an extensive degree, as exemplified within Category:Fictional characters, with articles for George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life), Mary Hatch and Mr. Potter. Clarence Odbody is, indeed, an iconic character who, in addition to being the central figure in the above mentioned Clarence (1990 film) and The Last Temptation of Clarence Odbody, receives detailed write-ups in twelve books [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] which recount It's a Wonderful Life. Clarence's entry can certainly be expanded with specific particulars gleaned from those books but, even in its present state, it already establishes Clarence as, arguably, the most renowned guardian angel in all of fiction, with a stand-alone mention in Wikipedia's own article, Guardian angel#In film. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In its present state it is entirely superfluous, consisting of a summary from the main article plus a few random quotes. Contrary to a common misconception , notability does not mandate an article if the material is already completely covered elsewhere. I agree that if there's worthwhile added-value material in these books, and if someone would actually go to the trouble to insert it, it would likely hold water. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a stand-alone page because of the 1990 film Clarence which would have more detail about Odbody's "life" as an angel. It's a Wonderful Life is set in 1945, and Clarence in 1989, so it is an addition to the named character's fictional biography. That, plus the links and book mentioned above, indicate more notability to an already notable character. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Enough in-depth coverage, as shown in above sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to It's a Wonderful Life. I see that I'm going against the majority here, but I truly do not see what independent notability has been demonstrated for this fictional character. Most of the sources cited by Elmidae are about the film, not the character, and nobody else in this discussion has pointed us to anything more useful. And at least one of Elmidae'sRoman Spinner's sources isn't even about the film (it mentions the character just once, and only in passing). Also, the existence of the other articles doesn't tell us much, because Mary Hatch is even less informative than the instant article and George Bailey (fictional character) is atrocious, being written in the form of a real-person biography. The better approach would be to merge all of these articles into a single List of characters in It's a Wonderful Life but, in the meantime, we lose nothing by redirecting this one back to the main article on the film (which, by the way, already mentions that second film in its "Spin-offs" section).

  As for the argument that Clarence is an "iconic character", don't most iconic films have iconic characters? If this argument were to be accepted as correct, we would end up with separate articles for each of the main characters in almost every popular film. And most of them would look essentially like the one here -- little more than a duplication of material from the parent article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the 1990 Clarence film which should have much more information to add to the page. Won't have time to see it for a couple or few days, so if anyone else has the time... Yes, most iconic films have iconic characters, sure, but It's a Wonderful Life is a top-level iconic film, [which reflects] on its [major] characters, including Clarence., are as iconic as they come. The reasons to keep the page are numerous, as pointed out by all of the positive comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I just noticed that you mention only Elmidae's sources in your "merge" reasoning, and not Roman Spinner's links. Roman Spinner shows the prevalence of books written about this film. All of these books very likely feature Clarence as one of the main characters, thus one of the main subjects of the book. They probably show that Clarence's character is unique in film history, at least to that point (1946). Clarence would likely be the first topic in a "List of guardian angels in popular culture", a page I'd like to see if it doesn't exist, that'd be a fun one. So, I Just wanted to point out that Roman Spinner has kindly pointed out some of the sources which very likely back up the popular and academic recognition of this character's uniqueness and notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for commenting. I doubt that either one of us wants to engage in an extended debate, so I'll make my response brief. First, I have no doubt that the spin-off film can be a source of additional in-universe detail, but I don't see how that addresses the concerns raised in the nomination. And second, when I think of fictional characters that are "as iconic as they come", I think of the likes of Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Perry Mason and James Bond. Good ol' Clarence? He's not in their league.

Thanks again for the comment. Have a happy holiday season. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You're quite right. I really did intend to identify Roman Spinner's post. I'll correct that now. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and best holiday wishes to you and yours too. And you are quite right, he's not as iconic as the top-tier iconic characters. I got carried away there, and will strike the language. He's pretty notable though, and of angel characters in film, especially the subclass of guardian angels, he, among them, does seem to be of iconic status (or at least the character seems to be notable enough for the page to stay). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may hammer a bung into this barrel of Iconic good cheer... the point here is not whether a character is more or less iconic than Bogey or Mary Poppins, but whether there is relevant material to present about them that is not yet covered in the main article(s). That has not yet been demonstrated, and the supplementary sources noted above indeed seem to all just cover the film in its entirety (very likely all saying the same things, too). Clarence Odbody offers no added value, and there's no indication that is going to change. Can one of you proponents present an example of an in-depth treatment of the character that one could mine for such? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of the book sources will add to the page and the notable character. And because of your post I just watched the 1990 Clarence film which adds information not covered in the main article to both the back-story and biographical material about the character. And realize that there are thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands, of Wikipedia articles about film, anime, television, comic book, and video-game characters who don't have close to the amount of sourced material that this page has. You say that the books Roman Spinner links very likely all say the same things, but since we haven't researched them, time limited by the Christmas season and all, there are likely many nuggets of information in there. What's also important is that compared to the many other character pages accepted as Wikipedia articles, especially those about fictional film and television-based angels and guardian angels, this page's topic is both more notable and well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is our source for all seasons, we'll lay aside the question of whether Christmas is the proper time to deny Clarence his iconic guardian angel position in fictional history. It may be noted, however, that among the four central characters, George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life), Mary Hatch and Mr. Potter have had no existence outside of It's a Wonderful Life, while Clarence has gained a wider horizon. Although best known for being portrayed in It's a Wonderful Life by elderly character actor Henry Travers, redirecting Clarence Odbody to that film would overlook and diminish his standing as the title character in 1990's Clarence where he appears as a much younger guardian angel in a storyline independent of It's a Wonderful Life. Added to the fact that John Jughead Pierson's 2011 novel, The Last Temptation of Clarence Odbody (which, for one day six years ago, had its own Wikipedia article) also places him as the title character, it becomes clear that Clarence is a notable fictional entity in his own right, separate from It's a Wonderful Life, and has earned a place among Wikipedia articles based on his own merits. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although I have to question including a listed birth date as this article does, at least in the manner it is done there. Also have to admit I have added my own spin to the general corpus of "It's a Wonderful Life" related-fiction. Although to be fair, the way I did it gave short shift to Clarence. What we really need is someone able to find the 12 or so books Roman Spinner links to above, and link in important information from those books into this article. It is clear that there is scholarship out there, now it needs to be integrated into this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 26 December 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 Stubify. There seems to be a strong consensus that what we have is not fit for purpose and a sense that the article is being used to exaggerate the importance of the subject. There is not quite a consensus to delete outright (I have ignored the SPAs) so I'm going to stubify this and ask that this be rewritten from the good sources only. After that we will be better placed to see if this article can stand up or not. If we have issues with SPAs and COI editors coming in to push the previous mess we can either move it to draft or have another discussion (hint if its go 2 and the pov pushing is continuing the community tends to delete and not exercise much AGF). Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Wrestling[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Defiant Wrestling (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)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling (in fact, it's the same promotion with other name). Most of the sources are from their own website (defiant wrestling or What Culture), their own youtube channel or Cagematch (which covers every wrestling event in the world). I don't see any third party sources enough to establish their notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to re-issue what I wrote on the talk page for this article. The notoriety of the article should really be argued over the following references, as the majority are primary, or just link the source.

"WCPW rebranding as Defiant Wrestling, Wade Barrett to be new GM". WON/F4W - WWE news, Pro Wrestling News, WWE Results, UFC News, UFC results. 2017-09-30. Retrieved 2017-12-13.
"Adam Pacitti's Big Announcement: WCPW Is Born". Huffington Post. 2016-05-26. Retrieved 2016-05-26.
"WhatCulture, WhatExodus? C5 Is The New WCPW?". Last Word on Pro Wrestling. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2017-09-19.
"What Culture Wrestling Departees File Docs For New Business Venture". Pro Wrestling Sheet. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2017-09-19.
Greer, Jamie (30 September 2017). "WCPW rebranding to Defiant Wrestling". LWPS. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
Jarrel, Tim (October 1, 2017). "WCPW rebranding to Defiant Wrestling3". Pro Wrestling Unlimited. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
Hamilton, Ian (October 20, 2017). "Last episode of Loaded". Back Body Drop. Retrieved October 20, 2017.
Currier, Joseph (2017-08-26). "Daily Update: Mayweather vs. McGregor, Charlotte, WCPW World Cup". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved 2017-11-01.
Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take a look on the Pro wrestling MoS, reliable sources. Last Word on Pro Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Sheet, LWPS, Pro Wrestling Unlimited, Back Body Drop (a blog) aren't reliable. For the entire article we just have 3 sources. (one of them, a small note about the world wrestling cup). As I said, 99% of the sources aren' reliable or are from their websites. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I didn't look at the list, but I deleted all other references that are clearly primary or ones that I knew didn't count. I have been leaning Delete, but with how exceedingly long the article is, and the sheer amount of references that are to be ignored are overwhelming. The question is, would a small article with those three sources be sufficient, or is the article doomed without more third party references. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found these

• PWInsider
• PWInsider
• This Crave article has some coverage
• Not sure about this
• More youtube drama here and here

Not sure if that's enough but they did get in some news for the YoutTube stuff. Again, it's not great.★Trekker (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:GNG. -- TheCorageone1^Connect 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep No delete, the article as reliable sources. - RigaPietrev12^{User talk:RigaPietrev12 comment added 15:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)} — RigaPietrev12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep The article as reliable sources and has a very good writting - Spinarok15 comment added 16:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Spinarok15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • These three users hasn't previous editions. Also, they don't have arguments. Looks like someone is cheating. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, trying to cheat at least.★Trekker (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or, maybe, stub. WhatCulture is so notable it is a red link and yet their in-house wresting YouTube channel makes yet another attempt to grapple its way into Wikipedia. This has 68 supposed "references". 18 are YouTube videos and should be ignored entirely when assessing notability. Others are inside sources of various sorts, which again convey no notability. There are also blogs and fansites. Then we have some more independent ones that are OK for verifying content but convey no notability as they try to cover everything. (I believe Cagematch falls into this category.) Finally we do have a little that merits consideration. The Huffington Post article is on topic and goes some of the way but it is not "significant coverage by reliable sources" in itself. The pastemagazine.com article looked promising too but that fails to even mention the subject of this article (under any of its names). That seems to be as good as it gets. At the other end of the spectrum we get references so far off topic (e.g. residentadvisor.net, which doesn't even mention the topic here, never mind support the claim that 100 people attended a WCPW event at all) that one has to wonder if they are only here to artificially bulk up the numbers as if quantity can make up for a lack of quality.

There is also some spin going on here. Despite the clear desire to put in as many "references" as possible, nobody found room for real RS coverage of the genuine (albeit not exactly earth-shattering) related controversy here:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41764308
• http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/adam-blampied-youtube-what-culture-women-nude-photos-sexual-harassment-apology-twitter-statement-a8023001.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/british-youtuber-adam-blampied-apologises-manipulating-women/

If people would prefer to pass over that matter in silence then I'd be prepared to see Blampied omitted entirely (as he is not the subject of the article or particularly notable in his own right) but I don't think that he can be mentioned omitting the one thing he is actually slightly notable for in connection with this subject.

If this is to be kept at all it needs to have all the nonsense stripped out. The unreferenced tables need to go. The "referenced" ones probably need to go too, being fancruft and trivia. The bracket diagrams? I mean, I feel sorry for whoever clearly spent a lot of time to make nice diagrams (and by all means publish it somewhere else to avoid wasting it entirely) but I don't see it having a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository for minor sports stats. Once stripped down to just what RS sources support it is just about possible that there could be a valid stub here but I remain to be convinced. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • In fact, the Blampied scandal was discovered after he left the promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I wasn't sure if that was the case or whether it was related his leaving and it became public later. Either way, it pertains to his time there and it is pretty much the only thing he has much RS coverage for in connection to this subject. Having him in the article invites that elephant into the room. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't help noticing that all three Keep !votes above my Delete are from what look like very recently created single purpose accounts. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah WCPW shills seem to think that wikipedia is filled with easily fooled people. Same thing has happened before in WhatCulture related AFDs.★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found two more Crave articles here and here. Still, not sure if that helpes much.★Trekker (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is a huge mess, however in between the mess there is enough to make it pass WP:GNG. The article obviously needs to be cleaned up, but its does pass GNG. - Galatz^Talk 20:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you find the notability? Only a few reliable sources talk about the promotion, this is not significant coverage by reliable sources. Most of them are about YouTube policy and how affects WCPW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HHH Pedrigree: I have participated in many AfD. For the most part, I have seen across these, if there are 3 separate RS that have articles on the actual item itself, not a passing motion, that this is enough to pass GNG. As your comments have indicated, there have been a few RS that have written about it. Therefore I would conclude that this is sufficient to meet GNG. Per WP:CORP's nutshell An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no disputing that it has received some level of coverage as you stated above, the question becomes what qualifies as significant. In my opinion the article shows enough sources to meet this. - Galatz^Talk 23:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to make a point here that I have no real want either way in this discussion, but the sheer amount of shills are making the discussion very easy to be against the article. I think I would be a lot more on board if WhatCulture itself could be proven to meet GNG; as surely the parent company should inherit notability from it's subordinates. A lot of the issue here, is that there are very few proven media sites that acknowledge Defiant as a brand, but word of mouth is mostly why it is so well known. I'd like to say, irregardless of the result of this vote, a copy should be stored to be worked on, should the AfD discussion end in a delete vote. All it really needs is one or two news sites to have a mention of it, and everything is fine. As of right now, it all screams self-hype.
  However, if the article does get accepted, I feel as though work needs to be done to shorten it, as right now, there is far too much information in it for a simple promotion article. Right now, it's around one and a half times the size of the Ring of Honor article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because the article includes History, 5 championships, roster, list of events and tournaments. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee's point about WhatCulture being a red link is a good one. If that was found to be notable (which remains to be demonstrated) then having an article with a section in it for the wrestling promotions would be acceptable so long as it wasn't overdone and fell foul of WP:COATRACK (So no detailed fancruft coverage!). I'm less keen on the idea of making a draft because that was done with the WCPW articles and all it accomplished was to encourage people to waste their time working on drafts with very little hope of success. Of course, if anybody wanted a copy in order to publish it on a fan wiki somewhere then, subject to licence compatibility, that would be fine. In fact, that is what I recommend the fans to do. If they make their own fan wiki then they can do whatever they like without them bothering us or us bothering them. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the article is a mess, but it should be kept and re-edited because, it can have some unreliable sources but it as some reliable sources such as PWI Insider per example and it featured important wrestler such as Jay Lethal, Kurt Angle, Noam Dar, so for me is a keep. --TheUs3r12 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I agree with everything DanielRigal said. There's a tendency to treat every little indy fed like they're WWE and get into the intricate details of their championships and tournaments. We shouldn't! If they're covered in reliable sources then we should cover them, we should not if we have to rely heavily on primary sources. I thought Progress Wrestling was the worst offender but the fact that we've deleted this article multiple times may give it an advantage. We could trim all the fat and leave a stub in place but I'm not sure that's beneficial. I also don't care which wrestlers have wrestled there, that's WP:NOTINHERITED. I would have suggested a merge to WhatCulture but that can't happen for obvious reasons.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't feel the nominator's points (in the original nomination and in response to other comments) have been convincingly countered and LM2000 correctly states that notability is not inherited from some of the well-known independent wrestlers who have worked for the company. The Wrestling Observer and PWInsider have printed information about the group but part of their function is to carry as many results from as many shows as possible so simply having shows mentioned in both publications is no proof of notability. I'm also troubled by the sheer volume of single-purpose accounts associated with this article and What Culture Pro Wrestling - there's no real way of knowing if they're passionate fans or spammers working for the group itself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the end it doesn't matter what these shills are, they're not coming with convincing arguments either way.★Trekker (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In the past WCPW articles I have had difficulty telling fans from spammers. There is also a middle possibility which is that some are fans being canvassed somewhere else and sent here without knowing about Wikipedia. We should not bite their heads off unless we see clear signs of deliberate sockpuppetry or other abuses. As you say, if other people could present a convincing Keep argument then this wouldn't matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- notability is not inherited from the notable wrestlers who have worked for the company, and there's nothing better here. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep -- DW often gets some notable wrestlers (e.g Kurt Angle) to wrestle for their brand. Meanwhile they don't get that much attention but still get some all the same. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED) from its wrestlers. Any company could book big name wrestlers as long as they are willing to pay their booking fees. And you can't just say the company gets attention, you have to prove the attention is enough to meet guidelines. Nikki♥311 13:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see that there is still some back and forth reverting and reinstating the strikethrough on the SPA !votes. I don't see the point to this. Maybe we should let them stay, so long as the critical comments beneath are also allowed to stay, and let the closing admin decide what they are worth. It is not like they are likely to be mistaken for anything other than what they are and we want people to see that we gave the Keep side a fair hearing. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:47, 25 December 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. ansh666 07:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Souvik Pal[edit]

Souvik Pal (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 do not believe this individual meets WP:GNG. No claims of notability are made in the article and the only mentions of this person that I can find are on social media. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails NOTABILITY and GNG. Quis separabit? 17:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 December 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. ansh666 07:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Yip[edit]

John Yip (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:RLN and doesn't seem to meet the GNG Mattlore (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah, I PRODed it on that basis (rationale:Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT for rugby league. Papua New Guinea did not participate in the Pacific Cup in the 1980s), unsure why Fleets contested it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails to meet lowest threshold of notability as any kind of athlete. Quis separabit? 17:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - PNG played in tests and he is a former Kumul whose playing days go back further than the first Pacific Cup in 1975. https://postcourier.com.pg/taram-says-decision-not-good-youth/Fleets (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG. There is a James Yip listed as a former PNG player here, but couldn't find anything which shows this player is notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 December 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. ansh666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Pukuntap[edit]

David Pukuntap (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:RLN and doesn't seem to meet the GNG Mattlore (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PNG internationalFleets (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a player with this name on RLP or PNG's past player list here, so appears he fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 December 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 WP:NPASR. ansh666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nike HyperAdapt 1.0[edit]

Nike HyperAdapt 1.0 (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)

Does this really need a separate article? The details can easily fit in the Self-tying shoes section. If it is to stay separate, then it should be added to the Nike navbox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sourcing adequately demonstrates notability. Possible merge suggested by the nom can be considered by editors working in this topic area. Why not start a discussion on a talk page before going for the jugular here? ~Kvng (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely disagree with Kvng that the sourcing demonstrates notability. There are two references, one an article in Wired that relies completely on interviews with the designers and is not intellectually independent therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability. The second reference from sneakscore fails WP:RS since there is no information on who is behind this website or who wrote the review. The entire article is promotional with no indications of why this show is notable. Fails WP:SPIP and fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was satisfied with the two sources cited. If that doesn't do it for you, feel free to do your own search. I just did and found three other bylined sources in the first couple pages of news results: [24], [25], [26] ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 23 December 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. ansh666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Software broadcasting[edit]

Software broadcasting (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 a notable term. The only reference is both promotional, and doesn't use the term. Google search results are for Live streaming software. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with and redirect to Software as a service; and make a copy to Wiktionary. WP:NOTNOTABLE for Wikipedia. --Ne0 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is very strange three-stages instructions for the closer actually –Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and oppose any merge/redirect, as this is original research and there are no references to support this definition. There is no such thing as "software broadcasting" in Software as a service. The article claims Software broadcasting is a way of delivering business software so that it can be accessed from anywhere, and on a subscription basis. This claim doesn't have any sources to support and verify it. The only case in which I have seen the words software and broadcasting used side by side (but not as a compound term) is in the content of discussing broadcasting (streaming) through software instead of tradition hardware based broadcasting.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it is not notable term. No reliable sources coverage of the concept. I am against merging because we shouldn't merge what is not reported by independent sources and thus fails our basic inclusion criterion which requires such. Its only source is the promotional corp where it comes from. The present lone source in the article doesn't even justify the content. Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree entirely with Ammarpad.--greenrd (talk) 07:27, 23 December 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 WP:NPASR. ansh666 07:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonic Dawn (band)[edit]

The Sonic Dawn (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources for the band HINDWIKI • CHAT 00:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article now has several references to reliable, independent sources, including print media, national radio (DR) and online magazines. The band has charted nationally in Denmark. The band is certainly one of the most prominent exponents of psychedelic rock from Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonWalsh420 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a release on the independent record label Heavy Psych Sounds is notable in psychedelic rock. Their roster includes Nick Oliveri, Wo Fat, Nebula and other famous underground artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GonzoWiki (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — GonzoWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh666 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vesta Johnson[edit]

Vesta Johnson (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:NBIO. Coverage in reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 11 December 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) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Lace[edit]

Noreen Lace (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)

None of this has been published or anthologized by a major press, and I do not see any significant critical attention. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't find mentions in large papers, indicating that WP:NBIO or WP:NAUTHOR is likely failing. —PaleoNeonate – 08:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no claim to notability made on the new page on a contemporary writer, aside from a list of publicaiotn. No secondary sources appear in a news search, and the first page of a general search shows no secondary sourcing. Worse, the small press that published the books doesn't bring up secondary sources when searched. I didn't dig deep because it's rarely productive when early searches produce nothing. She has published a little fiction in small literary mags. That's not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an unsourced CV. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Virginia Cancer Center[edit]

University of Virginia Cancer Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of notability, and Promotionalism, trying to make it appear more important than it is. This is not even one of the Comprehensive Cancer Care Centers, the highest level in the US. The references consist on unspectacular placings of various lists--there is also a good deal of PRto be found in Google. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Most of the NCI-designated Cancer Centers have articles. Regardless of whether it's a Comprehensive Cancer Center, it's still one of the NCI-designated Cancer Centers, which represent approximately the top 4% of cancer centers in the country. The references show that it passes WP:ORG, and 11 of the 18 references are not affiliated with UVA. Natureium (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that list, almost all of the ones that have articles are Comprehensive cancer centers, the highest level. Of the 13 at the same level, only 3 actually have articles of their own : Markey (University of Kentucky), UT San Antonio, Massey (Virginia Commonwealth University) . I intend to nominate the other two also. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  While it would be nice to have employment and budget figures, I don't see that the article is unduly promotional.  The talk page has no report of attempts to resolve concerns.  The nominator added a "Merge" tag to the article in November, which proves that WP:ATD were known at the time of the nomination, and that as per WP:Deletion policy, the talk page is the place to resolve concerns.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 December 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. ansh666 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes running via B Class roads in Sri Lanka[edit]

Bus routes running via B Class roads in Sri Lanka (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:NOTTRIVIA and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Prod removed by unreg user without citing any reason Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish notability. It fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR at the least. What a bizarre choice of routes!Charles (talk) 22:28, 19 December 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) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British-American University School of Law[edit]

British-American University School of Law (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, edits by suspicious IP (promo) and no references. References on Google are marginally minor at best, if at all. Cahk (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I searched about this and only saw a few mentions on forums and social networks. Could find one link[27] but that is not so enough, and results are mostly[28] those who have copied from Wikipedia. No reliable references for establishing notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No refs in the article, the article was created 3 years ago and only ever had one reference which didn't support notability. Schools of this kind are rarely notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:41, 22 December 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. ansh666 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka bus routes[edit]

Sri Lanka bus routes (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)

Every single bus route for one country. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOR as there is a distinct lack of sources. A list that is almost indiscriminate as well Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish notability. It fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR at the least.Charles (talk) 22:30, 19 December 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) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Raza Khan (Pakistan)[edit]

Ahmed Raza Khan (Pakistan) (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 notability. It was created by an account with only 3 edits and that too in this article.  sami  ^talk 08:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails to meet basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication the subject meets WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreed. Purely promotional. Someone has mistaken Wikipedia for LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 17:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:Prof not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. It is similar to an article that I created a while ago. The end result was, that according to WP:Academic criteria no.6, only principals/presidents or professors who have significant notability can be mentioned. Ma'az (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete that such a weak article on someone who is not even near notability or passing the guidelines for academics has survived 4 years is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Actually, criteria 6 only applies to people who are presidents of universities/tertiary colleges, and maybe heads of truly major subdivisions of them, such as top ranked law and medical schools. It also only would apply to such institutions that have a certain level of academic respectability and cultural impact. It almost never if not totally never applies to secondary level educational institutions, for this criteria to apply the place has to be clearly and without debate not a diploma mill, and deep issues of actual campus governance and organization should also be studied. While I can see for example in the US some community college presidents passing this criteria, I think if someone wants to make an argument to delete an article on the president of a community college, arguing that it is not a "major academic institution", they should be allowed to present arguments for this position, and we should not assume that term default includes all tertiary institutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 21 December 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. ansh666 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uxía Martínez Botana[edit]

Uxía Martínez Botana (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 lacks a neutral point of view, it's full of mistakes and/or lies based on self-published sources. The most blatant one is the affirmation that she's one of the World's Top 10 bass players, totally made up by her or her manager. This is the original source: http://www.notreble.com/buzz/2011/12/26/top-ten-bass-not-bass-discussion-new-signature-basses-and-gear-plus-the-top-videos-columns-of-the-week/ and it only says that her video was the 7th most popular article on that blog on that week. Any other interpretation is invalid and all the other references prove nothing, as they have not been verified. Also, I find the article generally poorly written, exaggerating her achievements and her picture is copyrighted. Stevialover (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – a) The nomination doesn't mention a single point from WP:DEL-REASON. AfD is not a mechanism to improve articles (WP:AFD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP). b) In case WP:N should be raised: the field of classical double-bass players is narrow and not widely covered by the general press or even musical magazines. Wikipedia has currently 5 female double-bassists (an underpopulated category), and <90 classical double-bassists altogether, so improving the encyclopedia's coverage of this field appears to be called for. The subject of this AfD has received sufficient coverage in independent and reputable sources, and she is the principal double-bassist in notable ensembles and orchestras. She satisfies nos. 1, 4, 6, 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, the article creator has tried too hard: the "among the 10 world's best" claim is just what the nominator says it is even though it has spread all over the internet. However, the article without this and other inadequately cited content would still satisfy notability requirements per previous !vote: Noyster (talk), 11:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's multiple sources stating that she's one of the top 10 bassists in the world. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator showss clearly he want the article to be improved but AfD is not place for cleanup. You can use ((NPOV)) and ((cleanup)) tags to achieve what you generally highlighted in your statement. This should be speedy closed, as notability is clear. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator here. Fair enough, I mistook AfD for cleanup, I apologise. Still, it's pathetic how you all fell for the World's Top 10 statement when I clearly showed you the original source and you posted 3 other sources that fell for it as well. Quoting Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth". Stevialover (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stevialover: No. Nobody is playing down your observation here. The reason the discussion takes different route is that AfD is generally for unsalvageable, non notable and articles that totally failed verifiacation. When next you encounter statement like above which is not in concord with the source, consider being bold and remove it. In milder cases put ((not in citation)) tag next to the statement so as to alert other editors, but don't just open AfDfor such cases –Ammarpad (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank's for this discussion. I've just rephrased the line about the No Treble article and added some info about the new Deutsche Grammophon CD recorded by the Brussels Philharmonic. Please, check it out. As for the message that this article "considered for deletion", could you remove it, giving to the fact the problem is solved. Pavel-Kataev (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, don't worry, it will soon be closed since you withdrew. But it may not be appropriate for me now since I participated. But it will be closed. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, it'd be great! Also, I'd like to note that comments by @Stevialover: were rather offensive. I think, the Wikipedia is not a place for destructive criticism. Hope, we all want to give verified information and improve it if necessary.Pavel-Kataev (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pavel-Kataev: We are different people from all over the world, our approach to issues and tone of expression must differ. You should assume good faith about others. If you've more to say write on my talkpage or his talkpage, not here, please. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 23 December 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.